Citation network
Harris Vs. Alabama
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 05, 1994
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. 504 (1994) October Term, 1994 Syllabus Harris V. AlabamaSearch
-
a) Because the Constitution permits the trial judge, acting alone, to impose a capital sentence, see, e. g., Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
see Tedder v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
would offend established principles governing the criteria to be considered by the sentencer, see, e. g., Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
s death penalty statute is based on Florida's sentencing scheme, which we have held to be constitutional, see Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
Proffltt v. FloridaSearch
-
by the sentencing judge in Florida, see Tedder v. StateSearch
-
Harvard v. StateSearch
-
Williams v. StateSearch
-
Tedder v. StateSearch
-
supra, at 910. The same deference inures to a jury recommendation of death. See Grossman v. StateSearch
-
verdict of an advisory jury. We have held Florida's capital sentencing statute to be constitutional. See Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
see also Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
a judge must accord the jury verdict under Florida law. While rejecting an ex post facto challenge in Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
provided by the standard of Tedder v. StateSearch
-
has recognized the significant safeguard the Tedder standard affords a capital defendant in Florida. See Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
to particular factors, either in aggravation or mitigation, to be considered by the sentencer. See, e. g., Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
that a sentence is invalid if the recommendation upon which it partially rests was rendered erroneously. In Espinosa v. FloridaSearch
-
to the recommendation, State v. CoralSearch
-
to do so, State v. ParkerSearch
-
State v. FrazierSearch
-
criterion must of necessity vary in order to account for the particular circumstances of each case. See Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
other reasonable, properly instructed jury would impose a death sentence. Even if I accepted the reasoning of Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
there are grounds for relieving the prisoner from the liability to be sentenced to death 1 See, e. g., Lankford v. IdahoSearch
-
and the assumption that death provides a greater deterrent than other penalties is unsupported by 3 In Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
STEVENS, JJ.), the joint opinion placed no reliance on incapacitation as an acceptable justification. See California v. RamosSearch
-
in particular cases. Witherspoon v. IllinoisSearch
-
abstract, may appear unworthy of life. A jury verdict expresses a collective judg- 4 See, e. g., Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
In my OpInIOn, total reliance on judges to pronounce sentences of death is constitutionally unacceptable. See Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
cf. Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
to protect the defendant from the risk of an erroneous jury decision to impose the death penalty. See Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
past argued that the override would serve to protect defendants. See, e. g., Brief for Respondent in Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
Thiel v. SouthernSearch
-
Olm stead v. UnitedSearch
-
the State executed the condemned man without giving him a chance to present this information to a jury. See Jacobs v. ScottSearch
-
Syllabus Harris V. AlabamaSearch
-
See Grossman v. StateSearch
-
See Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial