Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Gaudin

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 19, 1995

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

72 entries 4 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Chandler US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  2. Holland Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1990
    Relied / Followed
  3. Estelle Vs. Mcguire US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1991
  4. Victor Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1994
  5. U.S. 506 (1995) October Term, 1994 Syllabus United States V. Gaudin
    Search
  6. a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged. Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  7. sort of mixed question of law and fact that has typically been resolved by juries. See, e. g., TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway
    Search
  8. s contention that stare decisis requires respondent's constitutional claim to be denied is rejected. Sinclair v. United
    Search
  9. States, 279 U. S. 263 , 298, is overruled. Kungys v. United
    Search
  10. Kungys v. United
    Search
  11. the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubU Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  12. question for the judge do not require the higher burden of proof. See, e. g., United States v. Gribben
    Search
  13. F.2d 1148 , 1151 (CA6 1985). 2We held in Williams v. Florida
    Search
  14. Id., at 540-541. See also Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  15. requiring the jury to decide 'all the elements of a criminal offense,' e. g., Estelle v. McGuire
    Search
  16. see Victor v. Nebraska
    Search
  17. Patterson v. New
    Search
  18. Brief for United States 33 (emphasis added). The Government claims that this understanding of the jury's role daca v. Oregon
    Search
  19. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway
    Search
  20. McLanahan v. Universal
    Search
  21. D. Robertson ed. 1875)) (emphasis in original). Other expressions of the same principle abound. See United States v. Battiste
    Search
  22. jury as mere factfinder. Although each contains language discussing the jury's role as factfinder, see Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  23. Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
    Search
  24. historical practice is relevant to what the Constitution means by such concepts as trial by jury, see Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken
    Search
  25. and the judges reached differing results when the issue finally arose in the mid-19th century. Compare Queen v. Lavey
    Search
  26. Car. & K. 26, 30, 175 Eng. Rep. 448, 450 (Q. B. 1850) (materiality is a jury question), Queen v. Goddard
    Search
  27. F. & F. 361, 175 Eng. Rep. 1096 (1861) (same), with Queen v. Court
    Search
  28. Queen v. Gibbon
    Search
  29. materiality question in this country at or near the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. The Government cites Power v. Price
    Search
  30. there could be no directed verdicts for civil plaintiffs. The other early case relied upon by the Government, Steinman v. McWilliams
    Search
  31. point that we have been able to find places the Government itself in opposition to its position here. In United States v. Cowing
    Search
  32. that warrants dismissal.) See, e. g., United States v. Shinn
    Search
  33. United States v. Singleton
    Search
  34. United States v. Bedgood
    Search
  35. Nelson v. State
    Search
  36. not arise in a context in which the defendant's right to 518 jury trial was at issue. See, e. g., Cothran v. State
    Search
  37. State v. Williams
    Search
  38. State v. Lewis
    Search
  39. People v. Lem
    Search
  40. Thompson v. People
    Search
  41. Barnes v. State
    Search
  42. has no right to jury determination of materiality, there are cases that support the other view. See Commonwealth v. Grant
    Search
  43. Lawrence v. State
    Search
  44. State v. Spencer
    Search
  45. Young v. People
    Search
  46. of stare decisis requires that we deny respondent's constitutional claim, citing our decision in Sinclair v. United
    Search
  47. Brief for Appellant in Sinclair v. United
    Search
  48. Ibid. We contradicted that assumption in Deutch v. United
    Search
  49. U. S., at 299, citing ICC v. Brimson
    Search
  50. U. S. 447 , 489 (1894), and Horning v. District
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial