Citation network
Morgan Vs. Illinois
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 719 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Morgan V. IllinoisSearch
-
dire to select the jury for petitioner Morgan's capital murder trial. The State requested, pursuant to Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
consider the evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as the instructions require. Cf., e. g., Wainwright v. WittSearch
-
to identify such persons by questioning them at voir dire about their views on the death penalty. Cf. Lockhart v. McCreeSearch
-
chosen. In accordance with Illinois law, the trial court, rather than the attorneys, conducted voir dire. People v. GacySearch
-
The State, having elected to pursue capital punishment, requested inquiry permitted by Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
Supreme Court affirmed petitioner's conviction and death sentence, rejecting petitioner's claim that, pursuant to Ross v. OklahomaSearch
-
People v. JacksonSearch
-
any one right way for a State to set up its capital sentencing 125, 156 (1991). See also State v. AtkinsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
so long as, by questions and oath, each juror swears to be fair and impartial and to follow the law. See Riley v. StateSearch
-
State v. HymanSearch
-
S. E. 2d 209, 211-212 (1981), cert. denied, 458 U. S. 1122 (1982). Missouri appears to be of this view as well. State v. McMillinSearch
-
U. S. 881 (1990). California, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia disagree, see People v. BittakerSearch
-
Skipper v. StateSearch
-
State v. HenrySearch
-
State v. WilliamsSearch
-
State v. RogersSearch
-
State v. NortonSearch
-
Patterson v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Va. 653, 657-660, 283 S. E. 2d 212, 214-216 (1981), as apparently do Arkansas, Florida, and Kentucky, see Pickens v. StateSearch
-
Gore v. StateSearch
-
Morris v. CommonwealthSearch
-
S. W. 2d 58, 60 (Ky. 1989). Lower courts in Alabama also follow this latter view. See Bracewell v. StateSearch
-
cf. Henderson v. StateSearch
-
and whether the voir dire in this case was constitutionally sufficient. A Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
jury. Prior to this decision applying the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision to the States, we recognized in Irvin v. DowdSearch
-
U. S. 717 (1961), and in Turner v. LouisianaSearch
-
has said that the Fourteenth Amendment does not demand the use of jury trials in a State's criminal procedure, Fay v. NewSearch
-
he stands unsworne.' Co. Litt. 155b. His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial. Cf. Thompson v. CitySearch
-
s Trial 416 (1807). 'The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial.' Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, at 721-722 (footnote omitted). In Turner v. LouisianaSearch
-
cf. Groppi v. WisconsinSearch
-
capital sentencing juries and presenting issues most analogous to that which we decide here today, e. g., Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
Adams v. TexasSearch
-
Fourteenth Amendments to ensure the impartiality of any jury that will undertake capital sentencing. See also Turner v. MurraySearch
-
U. S., at 424 (quoting Adams v. TexasSearch
-
of his or her instructions, is not an impartial juror and must be removed for cause. Thereafter, in Ross v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 589 , 594 (1976) (quoting Connors v. UnitedSearch
-
of a defendant's right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors. Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
Morford v. UnitedSearch
-
RosalesLopez v. UnitedSearch
-
Aldridge v. UnitedSearch
-
cases, to find that certain inquiries must be made to effectuate constitutional protections, see, e. g., Turner v. MurraySearch
-
Syllabus Morgan V. IllinoisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial