Citation network
Wright Vs. West
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 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. 277 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Wright, Warden, Et Al. V. WestSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
District Court also rejected that contention. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the standard of Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
that the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational factfinder of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that Teague v. LaneSearch
-
and thus his claim was barred by Teague v. LaneSearch
-
case, we must determine whether the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly applied our decision in Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
Skeeter v. CommonwealthSearch
-
explain, or falsely explains, his exclusive possession of recently stolen property is the thief. See, e. g., Moehring v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Best v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Virginia refused the petition-a disposition indicating that the court found the petition without merit, see Saunders v. ReynoldsSearch
-
Jackson v. VirginiaSearch
-
state prisoners if no state court had provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims. See, e. g., Moore v. DempseySearch
-
Kuhlmann v. Wil-Search
-
before 1953, none of which we find convincing. First, she contends that the full-and-fair litigation standard in Frank v. MangumSearch
-
U. S. 309 (1915), and Moore v. DempseySearch
-
fact, however, Justice Powell has often recounted exactly the same familiar history that we summarize above. In Rose v. MitchellSearch
-
U. S., at 580 (opinion concurring in judgment). Similarly, in Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
Salinger 287 We rejected the principle of absolute deference in our landmark decision in Brown v. AllenSearch
-
In some of these cases, we would have denied habeas relief even under de novo review, see, e. g., Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
in others, we would have awarded habeas relief even under deferential review, see, e. g., Brewer v. WilliamsSearch
-
on habeas, Miller v. FentonSearch
-
U. S. 104 , 112 (1985).6 we conclude not that Brown v. AllenSearch
-
only that Brown does not squarely foreclose it. 6 We have no disagreement with JUSTICE O'CONNOR that Brown v. AllenSearch
-
de novo standard thus appeared well settled with respect to both categories by the time the Court decided Miller v. FentonSearch
-
that standard, at least with respect to pure legal questions, in our recent retroactivity precedents. In Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
a majority of this Court endorsed the retroactivity analysis advanced by JUSTICE O'CONNOR for a plurality in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Id., at 301 (emphasis in original). In Butler v. McKellarSearch
-
U. S., at 306 (opinion of O'CONNOR, J.) (quoting Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Greer v. MillerSearch
-
see Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
Post, at 305. 293 criminal cases pending on direct review, see Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
J.). We have held that the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel on a first direct appeal, see, e. g., Douglas v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 353 , 355-358 (1963), but that it guarantees no right to counsel on habeas, see, e. g., Pennsylvania v. FinleySearch
-
the rule that state courts must exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
as the state courts have provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them at trial or on direct review. See Stone v. PowellSearch
-
U. S. 195 , 210 (1989) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring) (quoting Harris v. ReedSearch
-
the countervailing benefits, must be taken into consideration in defining the scope of the writ. See, e. g., Coleman v. ThompsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial