Citation network
Blystone Vs. Pennsylvania
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 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. 299 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U.S. 299 (1990) Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
by the particular defendant, or that there are no such mitigating circumstances. This is sufficient under Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 , and Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
U. S. 302 . Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 , and Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
A.2d at 92, noting that it had been expressly refuted in its decision in Commonwealth Page 494 U. S. 303 v. PeterkinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 1070 (1987). In Peterkin, the court reasoned that the statute properly accommodated the concerns of Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
S. 238 (1972), that jury discretion be channeled to avoid arbitrary and capricious capital sentencing, and Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
aspects is not a novel issue for this Court. In Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
does not require that these aggravating circumstances be further refined or weighed by a jury. See Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
This instruction fully complied with the requirements of Lockett and Penry. Three Terms ago, in McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
any relevant mitigating evidence, even that falling outside the catchall provision of subsection (e)(8). Commonwealth v. HolcombSearch
-
Commonwealth v. FahySearch
-
Petitioner's reliance on Sumner v. ShumanSearch
-
invoked this principle to invalidate mandatory death penalty statutes for even the most egregious crimes. See Sumner v. ShumanSearch
-
Roberts (Harry) v. LouisianaSearch
-
Roberts (Stanislaus) v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S. 153 , 428 U. S. 188 (1976) (citing Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
may narrow the death-eligible class at the guilt stage by defining the capital murder statute narrowly, see Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
that objectively distinguish the murder from all other murders. Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
the Court invalidated two mandatory death penalty statutes. Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
of the defendant and the crime. Woodson, supra, 428 U.S. at 428 U. S. 304 . See also Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
and character in light of all the circumstances of the offense and the defendant's background. See, e.g., Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
The majority cites only Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
not embody the type of reasoned moral judgment required to justify the imposition of the death penalty. See Sumner v. ShumanSearch
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted this aggravating circumstance to include nonviolent felonies, Commonwealth v. HolcombSearch
-
Such a conclusion flies in the face of our reasoning in Sumner v. ShumanSearch
-
to require the death penalty. C The Court's suggestion, ante at 494 U. S. 303 , that Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
s sentence. I adhere to my belief that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
For this reason, the Court's discussion of the facial validity of the statute under Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
U. S. 302 (1989) and Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
held that an individualized determination that the death sentence is appropriate does not violate Furman. Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Different Members of the Court have had different interpretations of Jurek. Compare Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
and Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
and Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
of Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial