Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sawyer Vs. Smith

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 21, 1990

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

66 entries 8 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. Lockett Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jul 03, 1978
  2. Gardner Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1977
  3. Maggio Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1983
  4. Butler Vs. Mckellar US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1990
  5. Teague Vs. Lane US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  6. Penry Vs. Lynaugh US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1989
  7. Donnelly Vs. Dechristoforo US Supreme Court · May 13, 1974
  8. Saffle Vs. Parks US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1990
  9. U.S. 227 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Sawyer v. Smith
    Search
  10. U.S. 227 (1990) Sawyer v. Smith
    Search
  11. s sense of responsibility for the capital sentencing decision, in violation of this Court's 1985 decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi
    Search
  12. U. S. 320 . While his appeal of the denial of habeas relief was pending, this Court decided Teague v. Lane
    Search
  13. imposition of a certain type of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense, see Penry v. Lynaugh
    Search
  14. argument as impermissible under the Eighth Amendment. The discussion of improper prosecutorial comment in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
    Search
  15. of fundamental fairness, not the Eighth Amendment's more particular guarantees of sentencing reliability. Eddings v. Oklahoma
    Search
  16. and Woodson v. North
    Search
  17. U. S. 228 there were indications that Caldwell was not an Eighth Amendment requirement, see California v. Ramos
    Search
  18. of Caldwell, that misleading prosecutorial comment might cause a bias in favor of death sentences, see Dobbert v. Florida
    Search
  19. Page 497 U. S. 229 fundamental fairness that may come within Teague's second exception. Cf., e.g., Dugger v. Adams
    Search
  20. We must decide in this case whether a prisoner whose murder conviction became final before our decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi
    Search
  21. a federal habeas corpus action. We hold that he cannot, for Caldwell announced a new rule as defined by Teague v. Lane
    Search
  22. Id. at 985. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence. State v. Sawyer
    Search
  23. and remanded the case with instructions to the Louisiana Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in light of Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  24. U. S. 862 (1983). Sawyer v. Louisiana
    Search
  25. U.S. 1223 (1983). The Louisiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the capital sentence on remand, Sawyer v. Louisiana
    Search
  26. when we denied certiorari, 466 U.S. 931. Petitioner sought state collateral relief, which was denied. Sawyer v. Maggio
    Search
  27. Sawyer v. Maggio
    Search
  28. the jury's sense of responsibility for the capital sentencing decision, in violation of our decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi
    Search
  29. U. S. 233 After the en banc court heard oral argument, but while the case was pending, we held in Teague v. Lane
    Search
  30. We granted certiorari, 493 U.S. 1042 (1990), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals, see Hopkinson v. Shillinger
    Search
  31. address only whether Caldwell is available to petitioner as a ground upon which he may seek relief. Cf. Dugger v. Adams
    Search
  32. with the Court of Appeals, as well as the other two courts of appeals that have addressed the question. See Clark v. Dugger
    Search
  33. Hopkinson v. Shillinger
    Search
  34. we had earlier addressed Page 497 U. S. 235 the question of improper prosecutorial comment in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
    Search
  35. precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final. In Caldwell itself, we relied on Eddings v. Oklahoma
    Search
  36. in capital sentencing. But the test would be meaningless if applied at this level of generality. Cf. Anderson v. Creighton
    Search
  37. or opportunity to respond. These cases do not speak to the issue we decided in Caldwell. What we said in Saffle v. Parks
    Search
  38. raising an Eighth Amendment challenge to prosecutorial comment, we had rejected the petitioner's claim. California v. Ramos
    Search
  39. See Caldwell v. State
    Search
  40. put other courts on notice that the Eighth Amendment compelled the Caldwell result. Our opinion in Maggio v. Williams
    Search
  41. standard established in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
    Search
  42. Dugger v. Adams
    Search
  43. s sense of sentencing responsibility would skew the result toward leniency rather than a death sentence. See Dobbert v. Florida
    Search
  44. prosecutorial statements of the type later held to violate the Eighth Amendment in Caldwell. See, e.g., Ward v. Commonwealth
    Search
  45. Ice v. Commonwealth
    Search
  46. Wiley v. State
    Search
  47. Williams v. State
    Search
  48. State v. Robinson
    Search
  49. State v. Willie
    Search
  50. State v. Jones
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial