Citation network
Clemons Vs. Mississippi
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 738 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
U.S. 738 (1990) Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
factor was constitutionally invalid under Maynard v. CartwrightSearch
-
the appellate court has invalidated one of two or more aggravating circumstances found by the jury. Cf., e.g., Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
decide for itself whether to affirm the sentence. Cf. Bullock, supra, at 474 U. S. 387 and n. 4. Hicks v. OklahomaSearch
-
and undisturbed aggravating circumstance. Such an automatic rule in a weighing State would be invalid under Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 586 , and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
apply harmless-error analysis to the jury's consideration of the invalid aggravating circumstance. See, e.g., Barclay v. FloridaSearch
-
was constitutionally invalid in light of our decision in Maynard v. CartwrightSearch
-
factor, even though Clemons had never raised the issue. The court began by noting that our decision in Maynard v. CartwrightSearch
-
that are conscienceless or pitiless and unnecessarily torturous to the victim, id. at 1363 (citing Coleman v. StateSearch
-
the brutal and torturous facts surrounding the murder of Arthur Shorter . . . it is inescapable that Maynard v. CartwrightSearch
-
to uphold a death sentence imposed by a jury that has relied in part on an invalid aggravating circumstance. In Zant v. StephensSearch
-
prerequisite to imposition of such a sentence has been soundly rejected by prior decisions of this Court. Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
U. S. 376 (1986), held that an appellate court can make the findings required by Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
U.S. at 474 U. S. 385 . Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
does not require that a jury specify the aggravating factors that permit the imposition of capital punishment, Hildwin v. FloridaSearch
-
nor does it require jury sentencing, even where the sentence turns on specific findings of fact. McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
circumstance. Capital sentencing proceedings must of course satisfy the dictates of the Due Process Clause, Gardner v. FloridaSearch
-
findings, speculative appellate findings will not suffice to protect that entitlement for due process purposes. Hicks v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 343 (1980). However, these two general propositions do not lead to the result Clemons seeks. In Hicks v. OklahomaSearch
-
one of the aggravating circumstances on which it had been instructed. In this respect, the case is analogous to Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
decision be based on the facts and circumstances of the defendant, his background, and his crime. See, e.g., Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
emphasized that meaningful appellate review of death sentences promotes reliability and consistency. See, e.g., Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
based on the defendant's circumstances, his background, and the crime. This is surely the import of Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
U. S. 376 (1986), which held that a state appellate court could make the finding that Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
of the death penalty, i.e., whether the defendant had killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. Wainwright v. GoodeSearch
-
as we understand the concept. An automatic rule of affirmance in a weighing State would be invalid under Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 (1978), and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
that would result from actual reweighing of the mix of mitigating factors and aggravating circumstances. Cf. Barclay v. FloridaSearch
-
purported to rely on the State Supreme Court's reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Cf. Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
Court to find that the error which occurred during the sentencing proceeding was harmless. See, e.g., Satterwhite v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 249 (1988). As the plurality in Barclay v. FloridaSearch
-
standard, see Chapman v. CaliforniaSearch
-
s case, however, we vacate the judgment insofar as it rested on harmless error, and remand for further proceedings. v. NothingSearch
-
appellate courts may face certain difficulties in determining sentencing questions in the first instance. See Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
We note also that, although Hicks and a due process rationale were argued by the respondent in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
U. S. 862 (1983), see Brief for Respondent, O.T.1982, No. 81-89, pp. 37-38, and by the dissenters in Barclay v. FloridaSearch
-
Along similar lines, in Solem v. HelmSearch
-
Clemons's argument that the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision to remand to a sentencing jury in Johnson v. StateSearch
-
cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Page 494 U. S. 756 Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial