green
Positive treatment
2.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hopkinson v. State
(2×)
In the present case, the jury was in fact instructed to invoke the Rule 33(c) prerogatives, i.e., they were instructed to consider “[a]ny other mitigating circumstanaces.” The sentencer here — the jury — was therefore not “ * * * precluded from considering as a mitigating factor, any aspect of [the] defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. * * * ” (Footnote omitted and emphasis in original.) Lockett v. Ohio, supra, 438 U.S. at 604 , 97 S.Ct. at 2964.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.
See also Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 299 , 97 S.Ct. 2964 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1086 (1980) and Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rush
v.
Savchuk
v.
Savchuk
No. 76-846.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1977.
Published
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Shaffer v. Heitner, ante, p. 186.