Citation network
Jones Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 527 U.S. 373 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Jones V. UnitedSearch
-
Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 30, his claim of error is subject to a limited appellate review for plain error, e. g., Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
recommend a lesser sentence, would have compromised on a life imprisonment sentence as on a death sentence. Cf. Romano v. OklahomaSearch
-
would have been the same had the invalid aggravat- 375 ing factor been precisely defined. See Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
have said that the Eighth Amendment requires that a sentence of death not be imposed arbitrarily. See, e. g., Buchanan v. AngeloneSearch
-
Allen v. UnitedSearch
-
a supplemental charge to encourage a jury reporting itself as deadlocked to engage in further deliberations, see Allen v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 164 U. S., at 501, even capital sentencing juries, see Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
that the Constitution requires an instruction as to the consequences of a jury's inability to agree. See, e. g., Coe v. BellSearch
-
s supervisory authority, that the jury be informed of the sentencing consequences of nonunanimity. See New Jersey v. RamseurSearch
-
the power to persuade. Several other States have declined to require a similar instruction. See, e. g., North Carolina v. McCarverSearch
-
Brogie v. OklahomaSearch
-
Coulter v. AlabamaSearch
-
Justus v. VirginiaSearch
-
Green v. FrenchSearch
-
Evans v. ThompsonSearch
-
supervisory powers to require that an instruction of the sort petitioner sought be given in every case. Cf. Shannon v. UnitedSearch
-
retrial. While an objection in a directed verdict motion before the jury retires can preserve a claim of error, Leary v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 6 , 32 (1969), objections raised after the jury has completed its deliberations do not. See Singer v. UnitedSearch
-
Lopez v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. United States v. Socony-Search
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Namet v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Gustafson v. AlloydSearch
-
error doctrine, of course, is circumscribed and we exercise our power under Rule 52(b) sparingly. See United States v. YoungSearch
-
cf. Henderson v. KibbeSearch
-
have considered similar claims that allegedly ambiguous instructions caused jury confusion. See, e. g., Victor v. NebraskaSearch
-
applies to the extent that he is advancing a constitutional claim, but relying on our prior decision in Andres v. UnitedSearch
-
that instructions must be evaluated not in isolation but in the context of the entire charge. See, e. g., Bryan v. UnitedSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial