Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Shepard Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 07, 2005

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

61 entries 3 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Booker US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2005
  2. Ring Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2002
  3. Blakely Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2004
  4. Shepard v. United
    Search
  5. States - 03-9168 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Shepard V. United
    Search
  6. States Supreme Court of the United States Shepard V. United
    Search
  7. is a violent crime under the ACCA, Taylor v. United
    Search
  8. joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia, and Justice Ginsburg, concluded in Part III that the rule in the Jones v. United
    Search
  9. States, 526 U. S. 227 , 243, n. 6, and Apprendi v. New
    Search
  10. a generic State when a judicial finding of a disputed prior conviction is made on the authority of Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  11. Justice Thomas agreed that the Court should not broaden the scope of the evidence judges may consider under Taylor v. United
    Search
  12. U. S. 575 , because it would give rise to constitutional error, not constitutional doubt. Both Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  13. in which Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case. Shepard v. United
    Search
  14. States - 03-9168 (2005) Opinion of the Court Shepard V. United
    Search
  15. Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-9168 Reginald Shepard, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  16. not in a boat or motor vehicle. In Taylor v. United
    Search
  17. to his ample criminal record. On appeal the First Circuit, following its earlier decision in United States v. Harris
    Search
  18. and the claim to adhere to case law is generally powerful once a decision has settled statutory meaning, see Patterson v. McLean
    Search
  19. the possible federal sentence must be found by a jury, in the absence of any waiver of rights by the defendant. Jones v. United
    Search
  20. see also Apprendi v. New
    Search
  21. Courts of Appeals have taken a similar view, approving the use of some or all of these documents. United States v. Bonat
    Search
  22. United States v. Maness
    Search
  23. United States v. Smith
    Search
  24. pressed to explain. Footnote 5 The dissent charges that our decision may portend the extension of Apprendi v. New
    Search
  25. prejudice is too high can waive the right to have a jury decide questions about his prior convictions. Shepard v. United
    Search
  26. States - 03-9168 (2005) Opinion of Thomas, J. Shepard V. United
    Search
  27. Justice Thomas, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Apprendi v. New
    Search
  28. s decision an unnecessary exercise. Nevertheless, the plurality today refines the rule of Taylor v. United
    Search
  29. The need for further refinement of Taylor endures because this Court has not yet reconsidered Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  30. Harris v. United
    Search
  31. the Court rejects gives rise to constitutional error, not doubt, I cannot join Part III of the opinion. Shepard v. United
    Search
  32. States - 03-9168 (2005) O'Connor, J., Dissenting Shepard V. United
    Search
  33. e)(2)(B)(ii). We held in Taylor v. United
    Search
  34. s use of that one example did not purport to be exhaustive. See ante, at 6. See also United States v. Harris
    Search
  35. Commonwealth v. DelVerde
    Search
  36. Id. , at 297, 496 N. E. 2d, at 1363. See also Commonwealth v. Colon
    Search
  37. footnote omitted)). Cf. Commonwealth v. Forde
    Search
  38. of the Court defends its rule as necessary to avoid a result that might otherwise be unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New
    Search
  39. dissenting opinion). See also Jones v. United
    Search
  40. determined by the judge, Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  41. the ACCA, Taylor v. United
    Search
  42. the Jones v. United
    Search
  43. and Apprendi v. New
    Search
  44. of Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  45. Taylor v. United
    Search
  46. Both Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  47. Opinion of the Court Shepard V. United
    Search
  48. Reginald Shepard, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  49. In Taylor v. United
    Search
  50. United States v. Harris
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial