Citation network
Weeks Vs. Angelone
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 06, 1999
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. 225 (1999) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Weeks V. AngeloneSearch
-
to a question regarding the proper consideration of mitigating evidence. Weeks misplaces his reliance on Bollenbach v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 326 U. S. 607 , 611, and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
judge gave precisely the same Virginia capital instruction that was upheld in 226 Syllabus Buchanan v. AngeloneSearch
-
The Constitution does not require anything more, as a jury is presumed both to follow its instructions, Richardson v. MarshSearch
-
U. S. 200 , 211, and to understand a judge's answer to its question, see, e. g., Armstrong v. TolerSearch
-
considering mitigating evidence. Such a demonstration is insufficient to prove a constitutional violation under Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence, holding that the claims petitioner advances here lack merit. Weeks v. VirginiaSearch
-
certiorari, 527 U. S. 1060 (1999), and now affirm. Petitioner relies heavily on our decisions in Bollenbach v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 326 U. S. 607 (1946), and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
the trial judge gave no such instruction. On the contrary, he gave the instruction that we upheld in Bu chanan v. AngeloneSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Buchanan. 3 3JUSTICE STEVENS attempts to distinguish the instruction given here from that given in Buchanan v. AngeloneSearch
-
requires anything more. We hold that it does not. A jury is presumed to follow its instructions. Richardson v. MarshSearch
-
Similarly, a jury is presumed to understand a judge's answer to its question. See, e. g., Armstrong v. TolerSearch
-
there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury may misunderstand the governing rule of law. In this case, as in Boyde v. CaliSearch
-
the critical instruction given in this case differed from that given and upheld by this Court in Buchanan v. AngeloneSearch
-
did not prevent the jury from asking the question in the first place. Moreover, as this Court wisely noted in Boyde v. CaliforSearch
-
that the jury was confused.5 4 The Court relies on Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Armstrong v. TolerSearch
-
to give full effect to their assessment of the defendant's character, circumstances, and individual worth. Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
Syllabus Weeks V. AngeloneSearch
-
Bollenbach v. UnitedSearch
-
and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
Syllabus Buchanan v. AngeloneSearch
-
Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Weeks v. VirginiaSearch
-
Boyde v. CaliSearch
-
Boyde v. CaliforSearch
-
Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial