Citation network
Penry Vs. Johnson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 04, 2001
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. 782 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Penry V. JohnsonSearch
-
that none of the special issues was broad enough to allow the jury to consider and give effect to that evidence. Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This case is distinguishable from Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
see Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
has never extended Estelle's Fifth Amendment holding beyond its particular facts. Cf., e. g., Buchanan v. KentuckySearch
-
that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. E. g., Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
Eighth Amendment because his jury had not been adequately instructed with respect to mitigating evidence. See Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Id., at 319 (quoting California v. BrownSearch
-
Penry v. StateSearch
-
Last Term in Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
might be used against Penry. 903 S. W. 2d, at 759. Penry argues that this case is indistinguishable from Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
we have never extended Estelle's Fifth Amendment holding beyond its particular facts. Cf., e. g., Buchanan v. KentuckySearch
-
U. S. 619 , 637 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
on the verdict. Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
U. S., at 319 (emphasis added). See also Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
id., at 319 (quoting Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
a death sentence for Penry. We generally presume that jurors follow their instructions. See, e. g., Richardson v. MarshSearch
-
to elevate the supplemental instruction over the verdict form instructions. Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
of Penry's mental retardation and childhood abuse. Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
the arguments of defense counsel could be an adequate substitute for statements of the law by the court, but see Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
sentencing hearing satisfied our mandate in Penry I, that determination was objectively unreasonable. Cf. Shafer v. SouthSearch
-
our holding in Simmons v. SouthSearch
-
the jury could give effect to any mitigating value it found in Penry's evidence satisfied the requirements of Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
Penry v. StateSearch
-
Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 350 , 368 (1993) (quoting Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Texas to limit consideration of mitigating evidence to those factors relevant to the three special issues. See Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
find questionable given our presumptions about jurors' ability to remember and follow instructions, see, e. g., Weeks v. AngeloneSearch
-
Ante, at 800 (quoting Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
ante, at 802, it appears that it is the Texas courts that have received the mixed signals. In Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Syllabus Penry V. JohnsonSearch
-
Estelle v. SmithSearch
-
Buchanan v. KentuckySearch
-
See Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
Kotteakos v. UnitedSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. Shafer v. SouthSearch
-
Simmons v. SouthSearch
-
of Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
See Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
In Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial