Citation network
Monge Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 28, 1998
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
-
U.S. 721 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Monge V. CaliforniaSearch
-
plurality holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause, though applicable in the capital sentencing context, see Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
Nor can sentencing determinations generally be analogized to an acquittal. See United States v. DiFrancescoSearch
-
to a capital sentencing scheme in which a judge made the original determination to impose a life sentence. See Arizona v. RumseySearch
-
that Bullington's rationale is confined to the unique circumstances of a capital sentencing proceeding, Gaspari v. BohlenSearch
-
cited Bullington as an example of the heightened procedural protections accorded capital defendants, Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
whether the Double Jeopardy Clause, which we have found applicable in the capital sentencing context, see Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
Tennessee, Dan Morales of Texas, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Mark L. Earley of Virginia, Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
confined to the unique circumstances of capital cases. See 16 Cal. 4th, at 836-837, 941 P. 2d, at 1128 (citing Gaspari v. BohlenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a conflict among the state courts as to Bullington's application to noncapital sentencing. Compare, e. g., State v. HenningsSearch
-
Wash. 2d 379, 670 P. 2d 256 (1983), with People v. LevinSearch
-
Ill. 2d 138, 623 N. E. 2d 317 (1993). Prior to this Court's determination that the nonretroactivity rule of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Gaspari, supra, the Federal Courts of Appeals had reached disparate conclusions as well. Compare, e. g., Briggs v. ProcunierSearch
-
F.2d 368 , 371 (CA5 1985), with Denton v. DuckworthSearch
-
after acquittal or conviction and against multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. See North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
see, e. g., Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Witte v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Moore v. MissouriSearch
-
SCALIA acknowledges, post, at 741, that his argument is squarely foreclosed by our decision in Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
simultaneously profess his innocence of a drug offense and dispute the amount of drugs allegedly involved. Cf. Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
guilt, that finding is comparable to an acquittal, and the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial. See Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Stroud v. UnitedSearch
-
to the general rule that double jeopardy principles have no application in the sentencing context. See Schiro v. FarleySearch
-
in which the judge, as opposed to a jury, had initially determined that a life sentence was appropriate. See Arizona v. RumseySearch
-
id., at 357, we have recognized an acute need for reliability in capital sentencing proceedings. See Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
see also Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
the central concerns animating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. As the Court explained in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S., at 441 (quoting Addington v. TexasSearch
-
of the proceeding. For example, petitioner notes that Bullington did not overrule the Court's decision in Stroud v. UnitedSearch
-
at issue did not bear the hallmarks of a trial on guilt or innocence. Stroud predates our decisions in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 238 (1972) (per curiam), and Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
the evidence and legal errors that infect the first proceeding.4 In his unanimous 1 See also, e. g., Poland v. ArizonaSearch
-
cf. Schiro v. FarleySearch
-
a) (West 1991). This case, then, is factually different from Gaspari v. BohlenSearch
-
of course, that this determination was made by an appellate court rather than by the trial judge or jury. Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
The federal statute specifies that the 736 opinion for the Court in Burks v. UnitedSearch
-
of fundamental fairness that produced decisions such as In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970),6 and Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
Bozza v. UnitedSearch
-
cases cited in Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JusTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. I agree with the Court's determination that Bullington v. MissouriSearch
-
down the road the Court follows today. It was the Court's decision in McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
see Block burger v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial