Citation network
Graham Vs. Collins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 14, 1992
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
-
U.S. 461 (1992) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Graham V. CollinsSearch
-
would require announcement of a new rule of constitutional law, in contravention of the principles set forth in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
the applicability of one of two exceptions, cannot be applied or announced in a case on collateral review, Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
to rule in his favor. See Saffle v. ParksSearch
-
within Teague's meaning. To the contrary, the joint opinion of Justices Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
adequate consideration in the course of the jury's deliberation on the special issues. Moreover, Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 586 , 605-606 (plurality opinion), expressly embraced the Jurek holding, and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
not seriously diminish the likelihood of obtaining an accurate determination in his sentencing proceeding. See Butler v. McKellarSearch
-
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Graham's petition for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Graham v. LynaughSearch
-
F.2d 715 (1988). The Court of Appeals found Graham's claim to be foreclosed by our recent decision in Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
While Graham's petition for a writ of certiorari was pending here, the Court announced its decision in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
then granted Graham's petition, vacated the judgment below, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Penry. Graham v. LynaughSearch
-
CA5 1990). 2 Penry further held that its result was dictated by the Court's prior decisions in Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 104 (1982), and Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 (1978) (plurality opinion), within the sense required by Teague v. LaneSearch
-
The court noted that this Court had upheld the Texas capital sentencing statute against a facial attack in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
see also Teague v. LaneSearch
-
to rule in his favor, we are barred from doing so now. Saffle v. ParksSearch
-
for filing a petition for certiorari from the judgment affirming his conviction expired. 468 See Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
that petitioner's sentencing proceeding did not comport with the Constitution. 1 In the years since Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
JJ.). Four years after Furman, and on the same day that Woodson was announced, the Court in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
that sentences of death will not be 'wantonly' or 'freakishly' imposed, it does not violate the Constitution. Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). Two years after Jurek, in another splintered decision, Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
suffered this infirmity. The plurality's rule was embraced by a majority of the Court four years later in Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
see also Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
in our more recent cases, to the extent they are relevant, that would undermine this analysis. In 1988, in Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
issues adequately accounted for the mitigating evidence presented in that case. Ibid. This brings us to Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
within the meaning of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
facial validity of the Texas death penalty statute, which was upheld against an Eighth Amendment challenge in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
mitigating evidence can be fully considered by the sentencer in the absence of special jury instructions. See Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
the relief Graham seeks within the meaning required by Teague. See Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
of mitigating evidence Graham suggests without a wholesale abandonment of Jurek and perhaps also of Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
conclusion today. Accepting Graham's submission would unmistakably result in a new rule under Teague. See Saffle v. ParksSearch
-
Teague, supra, at 311 (quoting Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 667, 693 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part) (in turn quoting Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
see also Butler v. McKellarSearch
-
in his sentencing proceeding. See Butler v. M cKellarSearch
-
of Appeals is therefore Affirmed. JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. By deciding this case on the basis of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Syllabus Graham V. CollinsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial