Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Marcus

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 24, 2010

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

46 entries 10 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Gonzalez-lopez US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2006
  2. Tumey Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1927
  3. Mckaskle Vs. Wiggins US Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1984
  4. Waller Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · May 21, 1984
  5. Carella Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1989
  6. Pope Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · May 04, 1987
  7. Rose Vs. Clark US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1986
  8. United States Vs. Olano US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1993
  9. Hedgpeth Vs. Pulido US Supreme Court · Dec 02, 2008
  10. Yates Vs. Evatt US Supreme Court · May 28, 1991
  11. Syllabus October Term, 2009 United States V. Marcus
    Search
  12. Puckett v. United
    Search
  13. than to assess numerous other instructional errors previously found nonstructural, see, e.g. , Hedgpeth v. Pulido
    Search
  14. a dissenting opinion. Sotomayor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. United States v. Marcus
    Search
  15. Opinion of the Court United States V. Marcus
    Search
  16. Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-1341 United States, Petitioner V. Glenn
    Search
  17. so long as the course of conduct continued after the enactment of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Harris
    Search
  18. United States v. Duncan
    Search
  19. see also United States v. Olano
    Search
  20. Johnson v. United
    Search
  21. see also United States v. Dominguez
    Search
  22. Johnson, supra, at 468 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante
    Search
  23. including Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  24. and Sullivan v. Louisiana
    Search
  25. for example, instructing a jury as to an invalid alternative theory of guilt, Hedgpeth v. Pulido
    Search
  26. per curiam) , omitting mention of an element of an offense, Neder v. United
    Search
  27. States , 527 U. S. 1 (1999), or erroneously instructing the jury on an element, Yates v. Evatt
    Search
  28. Circuit were thus incorrect to classify the error at issue here as an Ex Post Facto Clause violation, see Marks v. United
    Search
  29. Marcus based exclusively on noncriminal, preenactment conduct, Marcus would have a valid due process claim. Cf. Bouie v. City
    Search
  30. so ordered. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. United States v. Marcus
    Search
  31. Stevens, J., Dissenting United States V. Marcus
    Search
  32. the defendant exclusively on the basis of preenactment conduct. 538 F. 3d 97, 101 (CA2 2008) (citing United States v. Torres
    Search
  33. F. 2d 205, 229 (1990), United States v. Monaco
    Search
  34. F. 3d 381, 386 (1999), and United States v. Harris
    Search
  35. United States, Petitioner V. Glenn
    Search
  36. United States v. Harris
    Search
  37. United States v. Dominguez
    Search
  38. Arizona v. Fulminante
    Search
  39. Gideon v. Wainwright
    Search
  40. Neder v. United
    Search
  41. Marks v. United
    Search
  42. Cf. Bouie v. City
    Search
  43. United States v. Torres
    Search
  44. United States v. Monaco
    Search
  45. and United States v. Harris
    Search
  46. United States v. Cotton
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial