Citation network
Ramdass Vs. Angelone
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 2000
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. 156 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Ramdass V. AngeloneSearch
-
from this Court, the Virginia Supreme Court again affirmed the sentence, declining to apply the holding of Simmons v. SouthSearch
-
act under Virginia law, the facts in this case would have been materially indistinguishable from those in Simmons v. SouthSearch
-
of a decision denying relief in federal habeas corpus, he seeks to set aside the death sentence in reliance on Simmons v. SouthSearch
-
Ramdass v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Ramdass' position had been raising the issue at trial, despite existing Virginia law to the contrary. E. g., Mickens v. CommonwealthSearch
-
O'Dell v. ThompsonSearch
-
Mueller v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Eaton v. CommonwealthSearch
-
should have instructed the jury that he was ineligible for parole. While the petition was pending, we decided Simmons v. SouthSearch
-
We granted Ramdass' petition for certiorari and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Simmons. Ramdass v. VirginiaSearch
-
Simmons applied only if Ramdass was ineligible for parole when the jury was considering his sentence. Ramdass v. CommonwealthSearch
-
of certiorari contending that the Virginia Supreme Court misapplied Simmons, and we denied certiorari. Ramdass v. VirginiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
jury of parole ineligibility, either by a jury instruction or in arguments by counsel. In our later decision in O'Dell v. NetherlandSearch
-
U. S. 151 , 166 (1997), we held that Simmons created a new rule for purposes of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
As explained in JUSTICE O'CONNOR'S opinion for the Court in Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
While a South Carolina defendant might challenge a guilty plea, the grounds for doing so are limited, see Rivers v. StricklandSearch
-
see also Whetsell v. SouthSearch
-
if a jury concludes that even if the defendant might not be paroled, he may escape to murder again, see Garner v. JonesSearch
-
some other change in the law might operate to invalidate a conviction once thought beyond review, see Bousley v. UnitedSearch
-
or he may be no less a risk to society in prison, see United States v. BattleSearch
-
trial. Virginia law instead permitted unadjudicated prior bad acts to be introduced as evidence at trial. See Watkins v. CommonwealthSearch
-
have been relied upon by courts with factfinding powers to exclude or minimize survey evidence. E. g., Amstar Corp. v. Domino'sSearch
-
Dreyfus Fund, Inc. v. RoyalSearch
-
General Motors Corp. v. CadillacSearch
-
Kingsford Products Co. v. KingsfordsSearch
-
Conagra, Inc. v. GeoSearch
-
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. BayerSearch
-
American Home Products Corp. v. ProctorSearch
-
Gucci v. GucciSearch
-
Schering Corp. v. ScheringSearch
-
Us, Inc. v. CanarsieSearch
-
The poll reported in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review should not be considered by this Court. See Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
procedure in Virginia for trial courts to consider and grant motions to set aside jury verdicts. E. g., Floyd v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Payne v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Johnson v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Walker v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Gorham v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Carter v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Cullen v. CommonwealthSearch
-
held that postverdict motions give a defendant a full and fair opportunity to raise claims of trial error, DiPaola v. RiddleSearch
-
of postverdict relief renders a jury verdict uncertain and unreliable until judgment is entered. E. g., Dowell v. CommonwealthSearch
-
see also Smith v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Blair v. CommonwealthSearch
-
to say that the trial court has no concern with the proceedings after the jury's verdict. Davis v. CommonwealthSearch
-
uncertain the finality and reliability of even a judgment in the trial court. Our own jurisprudence under Teague v. LaneSearch
-
does not consider a Virginia-state-court conviction final until the direct review process is completed. O'Dell v. NetherlandSearch
-
to obtain a Simmons instruction even where the defendant's future dangerousness is not at issue. Yarbrough v. CommonwealthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial