Citation network
Johnson Vs. Texas
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1993
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. 350 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Johnson V. TexasSearch
-
law. Shortly after the State Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, this Court issued Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
of the particular offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death, see, e. g., Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
which Johnson was sentenced has been the principal concern of a series of opinions in this Court. Although, in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
matter, the special issues system satisfied the foregoing constitutional requirements, the Court later held, in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Penry, see 492 U. S., at 314-318. The Court confirmed this limited view of Penry and its scope in Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
a constitutional challenge to the former Texas capital sentencing system. Like the condemned prisoner in Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
his youth. Graham was a federal habeas corpus proceeding where the petitioner had to confront the rule of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
jury instructions. 773 S. W. 2d 322 (1989). Five days after that state court ruling, we issued our opinion in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Appeals considered the argument on the merits and rejected it. After noting that it had already indicated in Lackey v. StateSearch
-
of mitigating circumstances by sentencers in capital cases. The earliest case in the decisional line is Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
in opinions issued on the same day, concerning the constitutionality of various capital sentencing systems. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Roberts, supra, at 335-336. Two Terms later, a plurality of the Court in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S., at 604. A majority of the Court adopted the Lockett rule in Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
accord, Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
McKoy v. NorthSearch
-
U. S. 370 , 377 (1990) (quoting Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
under which petitioner was sentenced has been the principal concern of four previous opinions in our Court. See Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Jurek v. StateSearch
-
in judgment). We next considered a constitutional challenge involving the Texas special issues in Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
the Texas special issues did not allow for sufficient consideration of the defendant's mitigating evidence. Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
was most explicit in rejecting the dissent's concern that Penry was seeking a new rule, in contravention of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
See Penry, 492 U. S., at 314-318. We confirmed this limited view of Penry and its scope in Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
were themselves a mis- 367 interpretation of some constitutional command. See, e. g., Vasquez v. HillerySearch
-
sentencing jury if a death sentence is to meet the requirements of Lockett and Eddings. See, e. g., Sumner v. ShumanSearch
-
which we assess whether jury instructions satisfy the rule of Lockett and Eddings was set forth in Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Adams v. TexasSearch
-
Franklin, 487 U. S., at 182, n. 12 (plurality opinion). In Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
whether there was sufficient evidence to support a yes answer to the second special issue. See, e. g., Ellason v. StateSearch
-
Brasfield v. StateSearch
-
see also California v. BrownSearch
-
is quite incompatible with the Furman principle that the sentencer's discretion must be channeled. See Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
decision, however, is simply a clarification (and I think a plainly correct one) of this Court's opinions in Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
U. S. 164 (1988) (plurality opinion), and Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
s holding (to the effect that discretion may constitutionally be channeled) was set forth in my dissent in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
dissenting in part). Accordingly, I join the opinion of the Court. JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. Although Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
at 369, in the sense that it has not been expressly overruled, I adhere to my view that it was wrongly decided. Graham v. CollinsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial