Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lowenfield Vs. Phelps

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 13, 1988

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

67 entries 4 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Witherspoon Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1968
  2. Lockett Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1978
  3. United States Vs. Burke US Supreme Court · May 26, 1992
    Relied / Followed
  4. United States Vs. Hale US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  5. U.S. 231 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Lowenfield v. Phelps
    Search
  6. U.S. 231 (1988) Lowenfield v. Phelps
    Search
  7. capital sentencing juries express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death. Jenkins v. United
    Search
  8. States, 380 U. S. 445 , and United States v. United
    Search
  9. the supplemental instruction given in this case did not require the jury to reach a decision. Similarly, Brasfield v. United
    Search
  10. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  11. offenses so that the jury finding at the guilt phase responds to this concern, as Louisiana has done here. See Jurek v. Texas
    Search
  12. Art. 905.4(h). On direct appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences. State v. Lowenfield
    Search
  13. Jenkins v. United
    Search
  14. per curiam). The use of a supplemental charge has long been sanctioned. Nearly a century ago, in Allen v. United
    Search
  15. U. S. 586 , 604 (1978). Petitioner relies on this Court's decision in Jenkins v. United
    Search
  16. petitioner's reliance. The same is true of the colloquy between the judge and the foreman of the jury in United States v. United
    Search
  17. effect of the supplemental charge was exacerbated by inquiries made to the jury by the trial court. In Brasfield v. United
    Search
  18. the polls or the supplemental instruction. We do not suggest that petitioner thereby waived this issue, Wainwright v. Witt
    Search
  19. under Louisiana law. See State v. Williams
    Search
  20. Profitt v. Florida
    Search
  21. In Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  22. performed by jury findings at either the sentencing phase of the trial or the guilt phase. Our opinion in Jurek v. Texas
    Search
  23. All of the Federal Courts of Appeals have upheld some form of a supplemental jury charge. See United States v. Angiulo
    Search
  24. United States v. Fioravanti
    Search
  25. F.2d 407, 414-420 (CA3), cert. denied sUb nom. Panaccione v. United
    Search
  26. United States v. Sawyers
    Search
  27. United States v. Scott
    Search
  28. United States v. Silvern
    Search
  29. Potter v. United
    Search
  30. United States v. Bonam
    Search
  31. United States v. McKinney
    Search
  32. United States v. Rey
    Search
  33. United States v. Thomas
    Search
  34. We note that our ruling in Jenkins v. United
    Search
  35. States was based on our supervisory power over the federal courts, cf. United States v. Hale
    Search
  36. s per se reversal approach must be followed when reviewing state proceedings on habeas corpus. E.g., Williams v. Parke
    Search
  37. Locks v. Sumner
    Search
  38. cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Page 484 U. S. 247 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  39. surrounding the jury's progress from deadlock to unanimity. Jenkins v. United
    Search
  40. demands a greater degree of reliability in capital sentencings than in other criminal proceedings. See, e.g., Lockett v. Ohio
    Search
  41. Woodson v. North
    Search
  42. as irrelevant all events preceding the polling of the jury and the administration of the Allen charge. Allen v. United
    Search
  43. counsel's specific request that the jury be instructed that it was not required by law to return a verdict. In Hyde v. United
    Search
  44. Ante at 484 U. S. 240 (quoting Brasfield v. United
    Search
  45. it blandly notes that this case is factually distinguishable from our other significant jury coercion cases, Jenkins v. United
    Search
  46. States, 380 U. S. 445 (1965), and United States v. United
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Lowenfield v. Phelps
    Search
  48. and United States v. United
    Search
  49. Similarly, Brasfield v. United
    Search
  50. Gregg v. Georgia
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial