Citation network
Oregon Vs. Guzek
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 22, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Oregon V. GuzekSearch
-
Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 , 604 (plurality opinion), and Green v. GeorgiaSearch
-
on his guilt of the basic crime of conviction. Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
U. S. 164 , 173, n. 6 (plurality opinion). Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
supra , and Green v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
at which, in principle, that matter is not at issue. The law typically discourages such collateral attacks. Cf. Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
in which Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Oregon v. GuzekSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Oregon V. GuzekSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-928 Oregon, Petitioner V. RandySearch
-
Id. , at 54 (quoting Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
to Pet. for Cert. 56 (recognizing that this aspect of Lockett was adopted by a majority of the Court in Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
s holding in Green v. GeorgiaSearch
-
solely for a federal reason. And we possess jurisdiction. See, e.g., South Dakota v. NevilleSearch
-
see also City of Revere v. MassachusettsSearch
-
found in the Eighth Amendment a constitutional right broad enough to encompass the evidence here at issue. In Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Id., at 604 (emphasis added and deleted). And in Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 104 , the Court majority adopted this statement. See also McCleskey v. KempSearch
-
s decision in Green v. GeorgiaSearch
-
that the Constitution prohibited the State from barring use of the confession. 442 U. S., at 97 (quoting Chambers v. MississippiSearch
-
blocked admission of the evidence. In any event, subsequent to Green, this Court decided Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
Connor, J., concurring in judgment). See also Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
this defendant with a right to introduce the evidence at issue. See, e.g., Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
Penry, supra, at 328 (quoting Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
see, e.g., Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
in principle, that matter is not at issue. The law typically discourages collateral attacks of this kind. Cf. Allen v. McCurrySearch
-
the question presented. The Oregon courts are free to consider it on remand should they believe it appropriate to do so. v. ForSearch
-
It is so ordered. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Oregon v. GuzekSearch
-
Scalia, J., Concurring in Judgment Oregon V. GuzekSearch
-
dissenting opinion). Nothing has changed on that score in the last 20 years. On the contrary, in Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
lower courts have unanimously denied constitutional claims like the one we consider today. See, e.g. , Ziegler v. CrosbySearch
-
Evans v. ThompsonSearch
-
Duest v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. FisherSearch
-
People v. EmersonSearch
-
State v. FletcherSearch
-
Melson v. StateSearch
-
Crim. App. 1999). The last apparent scrap of authority for the contrary view came from our cryptic opinion in Green v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
and Green v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial