Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gray Vs. Netherland

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 20, 1996

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

78 entries 12 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Castille Vs. Peoples US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  2. Wainwright Vs. Sykes US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1977
  3. Saffle Vs. Parks US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1990
    Relied / Followed
  4. Sawyer Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1990
    Relied / Followed
  5. Butler Vs. Mckellar US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1990
  6. Teague Vs. Lane US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  7. Picard Vs. Connor US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1971
  8. Weatherford Vs. Bursey US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1977
  9. Sandstrom Vs. Montana US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1979
  10. Mooney Vs. Holohan US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1935
  11. Yee Vs. Escondido US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1992
  12. Schiro Vs. Farley US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1994
  13. of individual testimony that the Commonwealth planned to introduce at sentencing, and that the claim made under Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  14. habeas relief would give petitioner the benefit of a new rule of federal constitutional law, in violation of Teague v. Lane
    Search
  15. habeas review of the defaulted claim, unless petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default. Teague v. Lane
    Search
  16. federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts entitling a petitioner to relief. Picard v. Connor
    Search
  17. of such a claim to a state court. Anderson v. Harless
    Search
  18. U. S. 4 . Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  19. on which petitioner relies for his notice-of-evidence claim-and In re Ruffalo, 390 U. S. 544 , Raley v. Ohio
    Search
  20. U. S. 423 , and Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  21. use to prove the charges, and Brady, which addressed only exculpatory evidence, did not create one. Weatherford v. Bursey
    Search
  22. U. S. 545 , 559. Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  23. evidence is not the sole remedy for a violation of such a right, since a continuance could minimize prejudice. Taylor v. Illinois
    Search
  24. the importance of petitioner's proposed rule, it has none of the primacy and centrality of the rule adopted in Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  25. U. S. 335 , or other rules which may be thought to be within the exception. Saffle v. Parks
    Search
  26. him. Petitioner and Tucker took McClelland's wallet and threatened to harm his family if he did not cooperate. Gray v. Com
    Search
  27. Id., at 724 (citing Watkins v. Commonwealth
    Search
  28. him to death. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, 233 Va. 313, 356 S. E. 2d 157, and we denied certiorari, Gray v. Virginia
    Search
  29. for a writ of habeas corpus. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, and we denied certiorari. Gray v. Thompson
    Search
  30. in a food freezer while robbing the restaurant, and threatened the lives of two persons other than McClelland. Gray v. Commonwealth
    Search
  31. and the third, relying on Brady v. Maryland
    Search
  32. App. 348. Citing Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  33. habeas relief would give him the benefit of a new rule of federal constitutional law, in violation of Teague v. Lane
    Search
  34. the dismissal of several other claims, and remanded with directions that the habeas corpus petition be dismissed. Gray v. Thompson
    Search
  35. review of the defaulted claim, unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice for the default. Teague v. Lane
    Search
  36. violated due process by misleading petitioner about the evidence it intended to use at sentencing. In Picard v. Connor
    Search
  37. of such a claim to a state court. In Anderson v. Harless
    Search
  38. that the prosecutor prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 7 (citing Sandstrom v. Montana
    Search
  39. of due process. Ibid. Relying on cases like Gardner v. Florida
    Search
  40. U. S. 349 (1977), and Skipper v. South
    Search
  41. Brief for Petitioner 34. Petitioner cites In re Ruffalo, 390 U. S. 544 (1968), Raley v. Ohio
    Search
  42. U. S. 423 (1959), and Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  43. that a state immunity statute rendered the Fifth Amendment privilege unavailable. 360 U. S., at 430-434. And in Mooney v. Holohan
    Search
  44. was not raised or addressed in federal proceedings, below, our usual practice would be to decline to review it. Yee v. Escondido
    Search
  45. obligated to raise procedural default as a defense, or lose the right to assert the defense thereafter. See Jenkins v. Anderson
    Search
  46. see also Schiro v. Farley
    Search
  47. Gray v. Thompson
    Search
  48. Ward ius v. Oregon
    Search
  49. U. S. 470 , 474 (1973). In Weatherford v. Bursey
    Search
  50. import, in fact, is strongly against the validity of petitioner's claim. Petitioner relies principally on Gardner v. Florida
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial