Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mitchell Vs. Esparza

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 03, 2003

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

38 entries 9 linked 29 unlinked
Show
  1. Early Vs. Packer US Supreme Court · Nov 04, 2002
  2. Carella Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1989
  3. Pope Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · May 04, 1987
  4. Arizona Vs. Fulminante US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1991
  5. Clemons Vs. Mississippi US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1990
  6. Satterwhite Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · May 31, 1988
  7. Price Vs. Vincent US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2003
  8. Lockyer Vs. Andrade US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 2003
  9. Woodford Vs. Visciotti US Supreme Court · Nov 04, 2002
  10. Per Curiam Mitchell V. Esparza
    Search
  11. Supreme Court of the United States Betty Mitchell, Warden V. Gregory
    Search
  12. plus 3 years for the firearm specification. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the sentences. State v. Esparza
    Search
  13. State v. Esparza
    Search
  14. The Ohio Court of Appeals in a conclusory opinion denied his claim, referring back to its previous decision. State v. Esparza
    Search
  15. was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because it was contrary to our opinions in Apprendi v. New
    Search
  16. Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), and Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  17. s petition in part and issued a writ of habeas corpus as to the death sentence. Esparza v. Anderson
    Search
  18. Williams v. Taylor
    Search
  19. see also Price v. Vincent
    Search
  20. F. 3d, at 421 (citing Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  21. a jury on all of the statutory elements of an offense is subject to harmless-error analysis. E.g. , Neder v. United
    Search
  22. California v. Roy
    Search
  23. at sentencing stage), and we left a question similar to the one presented here open in another capital case, Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  24. Neder , supra, at 15 (quoting Chapman v. California
    Search
  25. see also Delaware v. Van
    Search
  26. manner. Lockyer v. Andrade
    Search
  27. see also Woodford v. Visciotti
    Search
  28. State v. Chinn
    Search
  29. Footnote 2 The Sixth Circuit cited Presnell v. Georgia
    Search
  30. Apprendi v. New
    Search
  31. and Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  32. Esparza v. Anderson
    Search
  33. Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  34. Neder v. United
    Search
  35. Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  36. Delaware v. Van
    Search
  37. Presnell v. Georgia
    Search
  38. Chapman v. California
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales