Citation network
Brown Vs. Sanders
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 11, 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 Brown V. SandersSearch
-
States, see Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
States, see Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
in which Souter, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Brown v. SandersSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Brown V. SandersSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-980 Jill L. Brown, Warden, Petitioner V. RonaldSearch
-
death sentence, relying on our decision in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
People v. SandersSearch
-
It affirmed the conviction and sentence in all other respects. We denied certiorari. Sanders v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
state remedies, the District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Sanders v. WoodfordSearch
-
the California court erroneously believed that it could apply the rule of Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Finding California to be a weighing State, and applying the rules we have announced for such States, see Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
II Since Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
of fact finds at least one statutorily defined eligibility factor at either the guilt or penalty phase. See Tuilaepa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
s mitigating evidence. See, e.g. , Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
factors permitted to be considered by the sentencer were the specified eligibility factors. See, e.g. , Parker v. DuggerSearch
-
see also Tuggle v. NetherlandSearch
-
West Supp. 2005) to be true. These are the eligibility factors designed to satisfy Furman . See People v. BacigalupoSearch
-
F. 3d, at 1061 (brackets in original) (quoting Williams v. CalderonSearch
-
intent to commit assault, which is already an element of homicide, see People v. WilsonSearch
-
it had previously found that to be unconstitutionally vague. Id. , at 520, 797 P. 2d, at 589 (citing People v. SuperiorSearch
-
quoting Zant v. StephensSearch
-
review standards required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. MurphySearch
-
s narrowing requirement. See, e.g., Tuilaepa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of States for purposes of reviewing invalid eligibility factors in fact made no difference. Cf., e.g. , Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
and non-weighing States, and that harmless-error review is necessary only in the former. See, e.g. , Sanders v. WoodfordSearch
-
Flamer v. DelawareSearch
-
Williams v. CainSearch
-
with requiring harmless-error review in both types of States. As Justice Breyer notes, post , at 8, Zant v. StephensSearch
-
s claim of constitutional error. Neither Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
Breyer, J., dissenting). Footnote 5 This very problem may have been present in Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
Footnote 7 This explains the footnote in Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
Court had arbitrarily refused to order jury resentencing, even though it had done so in an earlier case, Johnson v. StateSearch
-
s deliberations in other ways, but we rejected each of these theories in Zant v. StephensSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Brown V. SandersSearch
-
of an aggravating circumstance finding is to make the defendant eligible for the death penalty. See, e.g. , Zant v. StephensSearch
-
it provides a reason for deciding to impose that sentence on an eligible defendant. See, e.g., Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
has the same legal significance as a finding of three, and invalidation of one is presumptively harmless. See Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
question had been presented to us, I might well have concluded that the error here was harmless. See generally Brecht v. AbrahamsonSearch
-
is more likely to complicate than to clarify our capital sentencing jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent. Brown v. SandersSearch
-
Breyer, J., Dissenting Brown V. SandersSearch
-
as required by the Eighth Amendment. Lowenfield v. PhelpsSearch
-
aggravating factors. The Court has identified Mississippi as a classic example of a weighing State. See Stringer v. BlackSearch
-
West Supp. 2005), aggravating factor as one of the several factors for the jury to consider at Stage One. See Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial