Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schiro Vs. Farley

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 19, 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

74 entries 10 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. North Carolina Vs. Pearce US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1969
  2. United States Vs. Difrancesco US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1980
  3. ChaffIn Vs. Stynchcombe US Supreme Court · May 21, 1973
  4. Price Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1970
    Relied / Followed
  5. Ashe Vs. Swenson US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1970
  6. Teague Vs. Lane US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  7. Graham Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1992
  8. Collins Vs. Youngblood US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1990
  9. Godinez Vs. Moran US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1993
  10. Cichos Vs. Indiana US Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1966
  11. U.S. 222 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Schiro V. Farley
    Search
  12. to Schiro would require the retroactive application of a new rule, in violation of the principle announced in Teague v. Lane
    Search
  13. decisions. Because a second sentencing proceeding following retrial ordinarily is constitutional, see, e. g., Stroud v. United
    Search
  14. a certain sense, relitigate in a sentencing proceeding conduct for which he was previously tried. See, e. g., Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  15. prosecutions, the Clause is written in terms of potential or risk of trial and conviction, not punishment. Bullington v. Missouri
    Search
  16. the doctrine, namely, that an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined in his favor. See, e. g., Ashe v. Swenson
    Search
  17. of death. Id., at 50. The sentence was affirmed on direct appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. Schiro v. State
    Search
  18. N. E. 2d 1047 (1983). This Court denied certiorari. Schiro v. Indiana
    Search
  19. relief in state court. Again, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Schiro v. State
    Search
  20. N. E. 2d 556 (1985). This Court again denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. Schiro v. Indiana
    Search
  21. exhaustion of state remedies. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence for a third time. Schiro v. State
    Search
  22. Id., at 1208. This Court denied certiorari. Schiro v. Indiana
    Search
  23. U. S. 910 (1989). The Federal District Court then denied Schiro's federal habeas petition. Schiro v. Clark
    Search
  24. F. Supp. 646 (ND Ind. 1990). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Schiro v. Clark
    Search
  25. Teague analysis is ordinarily our first step when we review a federal habeas case. See, e. g., Graham v. Collins
    Search
  26. The Teague bar to the retroactive application of new rules is not, however, jurisdictional. Collins v. Youngblood
    Search
  27. In this case, the State did not raise the Teague argument in the lower courts. Cf. Parke v. Raley
    Search
  28. While we ordinarily do not review claims made for the first time in this Court, see, e. g., Taylor v. Freeland
    Search
  29. to rely on any 229 legal argument in support of the judgment below. See, e. g., Dandridge v. Williams
    Search
  30. of being able to decide that issue. Since a State can waive the Teague bar by not raising it, see Godinez v. Moran
    Search
  31. from the underlying premise that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense. United States v. Wilson
    Search
  32. DiFrancesco, supra, at 132 (internal citations omitted). See also United States v. Martin
    Search
  33. inconsistent with the argument that a first sentencing proceeding can amount to a successive prosecution. In Stroud v. United
    Search
  34. the first sentence was improperly based on a prior conviction for which the defendant had been pardoned. Lockhart v. Nelson
    Search
  35. U. S. 33 (1988). See also North Carolina v. Pearce
    Search
  36. sense, relitigate in a 231 sentencing proceeding conduct for which he was previously tried. Spencer v. Texas
    Search
  37. U. S. 554 , 560 (1967). Cf. Moore v. Missouri
    Search
  38. U. S. 323 , 329 (1970). Our decision in Bullington v. Missouri
    Search
  39. extends not only to prosecution at the guilt phase, but also to present evidence at an ensuing sentencing proceeding. v. Schiro
    Search
  40. also contends that principles of constitutional collateral estoppel require vacation of his death sentence. In Ashe v. Swenson
    Search
  41. the Double Jeopardy Clause incorporates the doctrine of collateral estoppel in criminal proceedings. See also Dowling v. United
    Search
  42. Supreme Court concluded that the jury verdict did not amount to an acquittal on the intentional murder count. Schiro v. State
    Search
  43. d). Cf. also Cichos v. Indiana
    Search
  44. effect of the jury's verdict, however, is a question of federal law which we must review de novo. Cf. Ashe v. Swenson
    Search
  45. have in some circumstances considered jury silence as tantamount to an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. Green v. United
    Search
  46. BLACKMUN, dissenting. I join JUSTICE STEVENS' dissenting OpInIOn. I write separately because I believe Bullington v. Missouri
    Search
  47. Schiro v. State
    Search
  48. see, e. g., Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  49. Woodson v. North
    Search
  50. see also Furman v. Georgia
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial