Citation network
Romano Vs. Oklahoma
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 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
-
sentence, but held that admission of the evidence did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
of it did not render the sentencing proceeding so unreliable that it violated the Eighth Amendment under Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 , 604 (plurality opinion), and Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
have been irrelevant as a matter of state law does not render its admission federal constitutional error. See Estelle v. McGuireSearch
-
U. S. 62 , 67. Dawson v. DelawareSearch
-
U. S. 159 , 167, and Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
admission of the evidence allowed the jury to consider, in aggravation, constitutionally protected conduct. Johnson v. MississippiSearch
-
jury's imposition of the death penalty a denial of due process under the analytical framework set forth in Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSearch
-
pending, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned petitioner's conviction for the Thompson murder. See Romano v. OklahomaSearch
-
impermissibly reduced the Sarfaty sentencing jury's sense of responsibility for its decision, in violation of Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
penalty. First, States must properly establish a threshold below which the penalty cannot be imposed. McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
Ibid. As we stated in Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
Id., at 244 (quoting Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Id., at 874 (quoting Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
see also Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
in Georgia). As we observed in California v. RamosSearch
-
We have also held, in Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
and concurred on grounds narrower than those put forth by the plurality, her position is controlling. See Marks v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Sawyer v. SmithSearch
-
of it rendered his sentencing proceeding so unreliable that the proceeding violated the Eighth Amendment. See Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
irrelevant as a matter of state law, however, does not render its admission federal constitutional error. See Estelle v. McGuireSearch
-
evidence at sentencing proceedings. But these cases are plainly inapposite. Petitioner cites, for example, Dawson v. DelawareSearch
-
our decisions in Dawson and Zant do not support petitioner's contention. Petitioner also cites Johnson v. MississippiSearch
-
establish a federal code of evidence to supersede state evidentiary rules in capital sentencing proceedings. Cf. Payne v. TennesseeSearch
-
We believe the proper analytical framework in which to consider this claim is found in Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSearch
-
at 391. However, if the jurors followed the trial court's instructions, which we presume they did, see Richardson v. MarshSearch
-
is Affirmed. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring. The Court today, relying in part on my opinion in Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
demonstrates why the admission of Romano's prior death sentence, like the prosecutor's arguments in Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution. See Callins v. CollinsSearch
-
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE STEVENS, and JUSTICE SOUTER join, dissenting. In Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
McGautha v. CaliSearch
-
for the Sarfaty murder, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated his conviction for the Thompson murder. Romano v. StateSearch
-
P. 2d 1335 (1992). Romano urged on appeal in the Sarfaty case that, under Caldwell v. MississippiSearch
-
in capital sentencing. Id., at 323, quoting Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
that Romano's fate had been sealed by the previous jury, and thus was not fully their responsibility. See People v. HopeSearch
-
quoting People v. DavisSearch
-
West v. StateSearch
-
quoting Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
in part and concurring in judgment), quoting id., at 336. JUSTICE O'CONNOR explained that she did not read California v. RamosSearch
-
reasons set out in the margin, do I agree with the Court that several post-Caldwell cases, beginning with Darden v. WainwrightSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial