Citation network
Buchanan Vs. Angelone
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 03, 1997
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 269 (1997) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Buchanan V. AngeloneSearch
-
issue, in which the jury determines whether to impose a death sentence on an eligible defendant. See, e. g., Tuilaepa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
on the sentencing determination do not preclude the jury from giving effect to any such evidence. E. g., Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
has applied its instructions in a way that prevents consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. E. g., Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and affirmed his conviction and death sentence. Buchanan v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Va. 389, 384 S. E. 2d 757 (1989), cert. denied sub nom. Buchanan v. VirginiaSearch
-
of the death penalty''' in order to eliminate arbitrariness and capriciousness. Id., at 347 (quoting Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 242 , 258 (1976)). However, relying on our decision in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
two different aspects of the capital sentencing process, the eligibility phase and the selection phase. Tuilaepa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
discretion to make an individualized determination and have that discretion limited and channeled. See, e. g., Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
precluded from considering, and may not refuse to consider, any constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence. Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
of mitigation so long as it does not preclude the jury from giving effect to any relevant mitigating evidence. Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
s sentencing determination not preclude the jury from being able to give effect to mitigating evidence. Thus, in Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting California v. BrownSearch
-
perfectly describes the incompatibility between the Lockett-Eddings requirement and the holding of Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
sentencer's discretion must be constrained to avoid arbitrary or freakish imposition of the death penalty. See Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
Ante, at 276 (quoting Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
about weighing aggravating against mitigating circumstances. Boyde, 494 U. S., at 373374, and n. 1. In Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
to cover the mitigating circumstance (youth) that the defendant there had raised. Id., at 354. See also Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
U. S. 164 , 183-188 (1988) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment) (same). And in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
of an instruction that seems to exclude the evidence from the universe of relevant considerations. Cf. Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
the judge, not to counsel, for authoritative direction about what it is to do with the evidence that it hears. Taylor v. KentuckySearch
-
see also Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
Syllabus Buchanan V. AngeloneSearch
-
Tuilaepa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Buchanan v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Buchanan v. VirginiaSearch
-
Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
of Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
See Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
In Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
Cf. Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
Taylor v. KentuckySearch
-
Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
Zant v. StephensSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial