green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.6 score
“while lockett and its progeny require consideration of all evidence submitted as mitigation, whether the evidence is actually found to be mitigating is in the discretion of the sentencing authority.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ex Parte Ferguson
while lockett and its progeny require consideration of all evidence submitted as mitigation, whether the evidence is actually found to be mitigating is in the discretion of the sentencing authority.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Of Washington v. Chadwick Pritchard
App. 157, 162 , 834 P.2d 651 ( 1992), review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1022 , cert. denied, 508 U. S. 953 1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson v. Potter
See United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549, 1553 (10th Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2448 , 124 L.Ed.2d 665 (1993); United States v. Cattle King Packing Co., 793 F.2d 232, 243 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 985 , 107 S.Ct. 573 , 93 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund v. City of Seattle
See Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wash.2d at 176 , 4 P.3d 123 (Challenge to a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance reviewed under LUPA's "clearly erroneous" standard). [52] See Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wash.2d at 176 , 4 P.3d 123 . [53] RCW 43.21C.090; See Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wash.App. 6, 13-14 , 31 P.3d 703 (2001). [54] State v. Rehak, 67 Wash.App. 157, 162 , 834 P.2d 651 (1992), review denied, 120 Wash.2d 1022 , 844 P.2d 1018 , cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2449 , 124 L.Ed.2d 665 (1993). [55] SMC 25.05.600(D)(4) (emphasis added). [56] Norway Hill Pres. & Prot.
discussed
Cited "see"
Perkins v. State
See Ex parte Hart, 612 So.2d 536, 542 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2450 , 124 L.Ed.2d 666 (1993); Ex parte Jones, 520 So.2d 553, 555 (Ala.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871 , 109 S.Ct. 182 , 102 L.Ed.2d 151 (1988); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d 679, 705-06 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), rev'd on unrelated grounds, 620 So.2d 709 (Ala.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 905 , 114 S.Ct. 285 , 126 L.Ed.2d 235 (1993); and Bankhead v. State, 585 So.2d 97, 108 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), aff'd in pertinent part, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala. 1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos
We have consistently upheld implicit Rule 403 determinations when the determinations are supported by the record. *847 See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 783 (10th Cir.1997) (concluding the district court implicitly made a Rule 403 finding when it ruled at trial and at a motion in limine hearing to admit 404(b) evidence); Mills, 29 F.3d at 549 (holding the district court implicitly made a Rule 403 determination when the defendant argued prejudice would outweigh the 404(b) evidence’s utility); accord United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549, 1553-54 (10th Cir.1992), ce rt. denied…
discussed
Cited "see"
Loggins v. State
See Ex parte Hart , 612 So.2d 536 , 542 (Ala. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2450 , 124 L.Ed.2d 770 (1993); Ex parte Jones , 520 So.2d 553 , 555 (Ala.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871 , 109 S.Ct. 182 , 102 L.Ed.2d 151 (1988); Johnson v. State , 620 So.2d 679 , 705-06 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), rev'd on unrelated grounds, 620 So.2d 709 (Ala.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 905 , 114 S.Ct. 285 , 126 L.Ed.2d 235 (1993); and Bankhead v. State , 585 So.2d 97 , 108 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), aff'd in pertinent part, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala. 1991).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bey
See United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549, 1557 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Newton O. Bey, A/K/A James Noel, A/K/A Newt
See United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549, 1557 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2448 , 124 L.Ed.2d 665 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rogers v. State
See, e.g., Hart v. State , 612 So.2d 520 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), aff'd, 612 So.2d 536 (Ala.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 (1993) *Page 650 (explanation that veniremember was inattentive and hostile deemed to be race neutral); Mathews v. State , 534 So.2d 1129 , 1130 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988) (explanation that juror "didn't seem very attentive" upheld against a Batson challenge); Nesbitt v. State , 531 So.2d 37 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987) (explanation that juror "appeared to be inattentive" held to be a neutral reason); and Smith v. State , 531 So.2d 1245 , 1248 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987) (explanation that juror "a…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Moore
Compare id. (defining a selective prosecution claim) and Furman, 31 F.3d at 1037 (stating the elements of a selective prosecution claim) with United States v. Thurmond, 7 F.3d 947, 951-52 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that the defendant's statistical evidence was "insufficient to establish that 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause"), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1311 (1994) and United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549 , 1559 (10th Cir.1992) (holding that the defendant "presented no evidence that either Congress or the Sentencing Commission ad…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Walker
See, e.g., United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549, 1558-59 (10th Cir.1992) (disparity does not violate equal protection), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 (1993); United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956, 959-60 (10th Cir.) (disparity does not violate due process), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 881 (1991).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Reed
See also United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549, 1557 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2448 , 124 L.Ed.2d 665 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Guthrie v. State
See Bush v. State [Ms. CR-90-1652, December 1, 1995], ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Cr.App. 1995); see also Ex parte Hart , 612 So.2d 536 (Ala. 1992), cert. denied , 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2450 , 124 L.Ed.2d 666 (1993) (in a capital case, "[t]he failure to object will weigh against any claim of prejudice").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dobyne v. State
See also Trahan v. State, 450 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Cr.App.1984)." The voir dire establishes that the court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a change of venue." "The appropriate method to establish the existence of adverse publicity or actual prejudice is through voir dire examination of potential jurors.'" Hunt, 642 So.2d at 1044 , quoting Hart v. State, 612 So.2d 520, 527 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 612 So.2d 536 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2450 , 124 L.Ed.2d 666 (1993). "`The constitutional standard of fairness requires that a defendant have "a panel of impartial, `i…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sockwell v. State
App.1989), aff'd, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala.1991); see also Ex parte Hart, 612 So.2d 536, 542 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 , 113 S.Ct. 2450 , 124 L.Ed.2d 666 (1993).
Robelin
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 92-8291.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1993.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Alabama (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.