Citation network
Kansas Vs. Marsh
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 2006
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Kansas V. MarshSearch
-
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
purposes in like circumstances, see, e.g., Florida v. MeyersSearch
-
that the judgment was based on state law, the State Supreme Court having previously reviewed the statute in State v. KleypasSearch
-
a) Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
penalty jurisprudence lead to the same conclusion. So long as a state system satisfies the requirements of Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 238 , and Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
opinion. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kansas v. MarshSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Kansas V. MarshSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-1170 Kansas, Petitioner V. MichaelSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
as construed by Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
purposes in like circumstances, see Florida v. MeyersSearch
-
of that provision under federal law, the latter issue having been resolved by the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. KleypasSearch
-
Amendments to the United States Constitution. We, therefore, have jurisdiction to review its decision. See Michigan v. LongSearch
-
III This case is controlled by Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 639 (1990), overruled on other grounds, Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
s decision in State v. WaltonSearch
-
s decision in Adamson v. RickettsSearch
-
Brief for Petitioner in Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
permits a jury to consider any mitigating evidence comports with that requirement. Id ., at 652 (citing Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
are free to determine the manner in which a jury may consider mitigating evidence. 497 U. S., at 652 (citing Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
statute cannot be said to impermissibly, much less automatically, impose death. 497 U. S., at 652 (citing Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976) (plurality opinion), and Roberts v. LouisianaSearch
-
See State v. YseaSearch
-
State v. GretzlerSearch
-
conclude that the Kansas capital sentencing system is constitutionally permissible. Together, our decisions in Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 238 (1972) (per curiam), and Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
death penalty, including the manner in which aggravating and mitigating circumstances are to be weighed. See Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
U. S. 164 , 179 (1988) (plurality opinion) (citing Zant v. StephensSearch
-
The use of mitigation evidence is a product of the requirement of individualized sentencing. See Graham v. CollinsSearch
-
Thomas, J., concurring) (discussing the development of mitigation precedent). In Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
information. Id ., at 603 (alteration omitted) (quoting Williams v. NewSearch
-
Following Lockett , in Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
see also Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
Blystone , 494 U. S., at 308 (quoting McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
may use equipoise as a loophole to shirk its constitutional duty to render a reasoned, moral decision, see California v. BrownSearch
-
in which a jury is constitutionally tasked to engage when deciding the appropriate sentence for a capital defendant. v. JusticeSearch
-
U. S. 370 , 378 (1990) (citing Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
People v. SmithSearch
-
Scalia, J., Concurring Kansas V. MarshSearch
-
which makes plain why Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
Post , at 3 (quoting California v. RamosSearch
-
case below), and State v. KleypasSearch
-
with, e.g. , State v. HoffmanSearch
-
and Jones v. DuggerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial