green
Positive treatment
Trending · 216 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
21.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Van McDuffy
he settled principles of construction direct us to conclude that the legislature did not intend to add an additional scienter requirement to the killing component of the crime.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
McMillan v. State
although perkins does cite two federal cases in which the court found batson violations by a prosecutor in tuscaloosa county, this, alone, is not sufficient to establish a history of discriminatory striking for the prosecutor in this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Billups v. State
Thus, in Waldrop’s case, the jury, and not the trial judge, determined the existence of the “aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty.” Ring, 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Cruz
This Court rejected this argument in Pandeli I, 200 Ariz. at 382, ¶ 90, 26 P.3d at 1153, vacated on other grounds by Pandeli II, 536 U.S. at 953, 122 S.Ct. 2654 . 14.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pandeli
Ring II, 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443. ¶ 4 Following the Supreme Court’s Ring II decision, we consolidated all death penalty cases in which this court had not yet issued a direct appeal mandate to determine whether Ring II requires this court to reverse or vacate the defendants’ death sentences.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Harrod
Ring II, 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443. ¶ 4 Following the Supreme Court’s Ring II decision, we consolidated all death penalty cases in which this court had not yet issued a direct appeal mandate to determine whether Ring II requires this court to reverse or vacate the defendants’ death sentences.
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Arizona v. Dwandarrius Jamar Robinson
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See State v. Hickman, 205 Ariz. 192 , 200 ¶ 37 (2003). ¶77 We have previously held (1) that the death penalty does not per se constitute cruel and unusual punishment, State v. Harrod, 200 Ariz. 309 , 320 ¶ 59 (2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002); (2) that where, as here, a defendant offers no evidence of purposeful discrimination in his own case, he cannot argue that Arizona’s death penalty is discriminatorily imposed against poor, young, and male defendants, State v. Stokley, 182 Ariz. 505, 516 (1995); (3) that the prosecutor’s discretion to seek the death penalty is n…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Wesley Coonce, Jr.
See Allen . 247 F.3d at 788 -89 , vacated on other grounds , 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Melgar-Cabrera
See United States v. Allen , 247 F.3d 741 , 769 (8th Cir. 2001) (" § 924(j) is fairly interpreted as an additional aggravating punishment for the scheme already set out in § 924(c)"), vacated on other grounds , 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Young
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 769 (8th Cir.2001) (“Although § 924(j) does not explicitly contain the same express mandatory cumulative punishment language as found in § 924(c), it incorporates § 924(c) by reference without disclaiming the cumulative punishment scheme which is so clearly set out in § 924(c).”), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
People of Michigan v. Kadeem Dennis White
See United States v Allen, 247 F3d 741, 765 (CA 8, 2001) (“Determining whether particular statements or practices amount to interrogation depends on the circumstances of each case, particularly whether the statements are objectively and reasonably likely to result in incriminating responses by the suspect, as well as the nature of the police statements and the context in which they are given.”), vacated on other grounds 536 US 953 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. White
(2×)
See United States v Allen, 247 F3d 741, 765 (CA 8, 2001) (“Determining whether particular statements or practices amount to interrogation depends on the circumstances of each case, particularly whether the statements are objectively and reasonably likely to result in incriminating responses by the suspect, as well as the nature of the police statements and the context in which they are given.”), vacated on other grounds 536 US 953 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
People of Michigan v. Kadeem Dennis White
See United States v Allen, 247 F3d 741, 765 (CA 8, 2001) (“Determining whether particular statements or practices amount to interrogation depends on the circumstances of each case, particularly whether the statements are objectively and reasonably likely to result in incriminating responses by the suspect, as well as the nature of the police statements and the context in which they are given.”), vacated on other grounds 536 US 953 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Perkins v. State
See Perkins v. Alabama, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741 , 757 & n. 3 (8th Cir.2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002) (vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cota
See Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1128 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (concluding that use of MMPI did not violate Fifth Amendment rights of defendant who put mental health at issue), vacated on other grounds by Perkins v. Alabama, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Adam McClellan
(2×)
See United States v. Watkins, 86 F.3d 1157 , 1996 WL 272391, at *3 (6th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table opinion) (citing United States v. Thomas, 34 F.3d 44, 49 (2d Cir. 1994)) (“Section 1111 of Title 18 of the U.S.[ ]Code . . . incorporates the common law understanding that the requirement of malice aforethought for First Degree murder is satisfied if a person is killed during the perpetration of a felony.”); accord United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002); United States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237, 1252-53 (10th Cir. 2000…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gallardo
See State v. Harrod, 200 Ariz. 309 , 319 ¶ 54, 26 P.3d 492, 502 (2001) (minimal weight given to family support), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 767 (8th Cir.2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Acosta v. Artuz
See Allen v. United States, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Bolden
(4×)
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 786 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), decision on remand, 406 F.3d 940 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert L. Bolden
(2×)
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 786 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002), decision on remand, 406 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pacheco-Lopez
(2×)
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 766 (8th Cir.2001) (noting that defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel is “strong evidence” that defendant understood his rights), vacated on other grounds by 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002); see also Pickens v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 988, 995 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Cooks v. Ward, 165 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (10th Cir.1998))(noting that invocation of a Miranda right demonstrates a defendant’s understanding of that right). 3 In light of his invocation of his right to remain silent, suppression of Pacheco-Lopez’s post-Mi ra…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Pacheco-Lopez
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 766 (8th Cir. 2001) (noting that defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel is “strong evidence” that defendant understood his rights), vacated on other grounds by 536 U.S. 953 (2002); see also Pickens v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 988, 995 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Cooks v. Ward, 165 F.3d 1288 -89 (10th Cir. 1998)) 3(noting that invocation of a Miranda right demonstrates a defendant’s understanding of that right).
cited
Cited "see"
John Adams Cathy Adams v. Paul Speers v. Merced County Sheriff's Department California Highway Patrol County of Merced Mark Pazin, Merced County Sheriff Coroner
See Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.2003), on remand from 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Adams v. Speers
See Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.2003), on remand from 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Natson
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 767-70 (8th Cir.2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Gamboa
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 767 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing two other 8th Circuit cases where plain error review was undertaken even though a double jeopardy claim was not raised in the district court), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 536 U.S. 953 (2002), and cert. denied, 539 U.S. 916 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Michael Gerald Gamboa
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 767 (8th Cir.2001) (citing two other 8th Circuit cases where plain error review was undertaken even though a double jeopardy claim was not raised in the district court), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), and cert. denied, 539 U.S. 916 , 123 S.Ct. 2273 , 156 L.Ed.2d 132 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hall
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 768 (8th Cir.2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 .
cited
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Perkins
See Perkins v. Alabama , 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
McGowan v. State
See Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1085 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001), vacated on other ground, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 776 (8th Cir.2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. Coweta County
See Vaughan v. Cox, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). .
cited
Cited "see"
Victor Harris v. Coweta County, Georgia
See Vaughan v. Cox, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002). 15 See citations on pages 1314-15, supra. 16 Brower, 489 U.S. at 596-99 , 109 S.Ct. 1378 .
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Sampson
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 793 (8th Cir.2001) (photographs of victims probative of intent, as showing the extent of the damage caused by the defendant), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Angela Jane Johnson
(2×)
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 769 (8th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Angela Johnson
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 769 (8th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth J. Haugen v. Rochelle Brosseau Puyallup Police Department the City of Puyallup
(2×)
See Vaughan v. Cox, 264 F.3d 1027 , 1031-34 (11th Cir.2001), vacated by 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), reinstated and supplemented on remand at 316 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir.2003); Donovan v. City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 946-51 (7th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth J. Haugen v. Rochelle Brosseau, Puyallup Police Department the City of Puyallup
(2×)
See Vaughan v. Cox, 264 F.3d 1027 , 1031-34 (11th Cir.2001), vacated by 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002), reinstated and supplemented on remand at 316 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir.2003); Donovan v. City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 946-51 (7th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lee v. State
(2×)
See Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1071-73 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 , on remand, 851 So.2d 453 (Ala.2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Rudolph Ex Rel. Williams v. Lowndes County Board of Education
See Thomas v. Roberts, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 829 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America v. Carlos David CARO
(2×)
See United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 780-81 (8th Cir.2001) (interpreting § 3593(e) the same way based on § 3591), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Aquart
See, e.g., United States v. Lawrence , 735 F.3d 385 , 418-19 (6th Cir. 2013) ; United States v. Lighty , 616 F.3d 321 , 368 n.44 (4th Cir. 2010) ; United States v. Mitchell , 502 F.3d 931 , 982 (9th Cir. 2007) ; United States v. Sampson , 486 F.3d 13 , 23-25 (1st Cir. 2007) ; United States v. Jones , 132 F.3d 232 , 248-49 (5th Cir. 1998) ; see also United States v. Allen , 247 F.3d 741 , 757-58 (8th Cir. 2001), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Turner
See also U.S. v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 765 (8th Cir.2001) (“[I]nforming Allen of the results of the lineup did not amount to the functional equivalent of interrogation for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.”), vacated on other grounds, Allen v. U.S., 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002); Easley v. Frey, 433 F.3d 969, 974 (7th Cir.2006) (“[W]e do not believe that [the investigating officer’s] statement regarding the evidence and the possible consequences of the charges Easley faced rose to the level of interrogation[.]”); Shedelbower v. Estelle, 885 F.2d 570 , 572–573…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Guysinger
See also U.S. v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 765 (8th Cir.2001) (“[I]nforming Allen of the results of the lineup did not amount to the functional equivalent of interrogation for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.”), vacated on other grounds, Allen v. U.S., 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002); Easley v. Frey, 433 F.3d 969, 974 (7th Cir.2006) (“[W]e do not believe that Long’s statement regarding the evidence and the possible consequences of the charges Easley faced rose to the level of interrogation[.]”); Shedelbower v. Estelle, 885 F.2d 570, 572-573 (9th Cir.1989) (holding t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gelbard v. City of Miami
Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186, 1186 (11th Cir.2004); see also Thomas v. Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160 , 1175 n. 12 (11th Cir.2001), vacated on other grounds by, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 829 (2002), reinstated by, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Montgomery
The Federal Death Penalty Act provides that “[t]he government and the defendant shall be permitted to rebut any information received at the hearing, and shall be given fair opportunity to present argument as to the adequacy of the information to establish the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factor.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593 (c); see also United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 773 (8th Cir.2001) (“The government must be able to put on a fair rebuttal to a defendant’s mitigation evidence during sentencing.”), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. State
See also Perkins v. State, 808 So.2d 1041, 1135-36 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), affirmed, Ex parte Perkins, 808 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2001), cert. granted and judgment vacated on other grounds, Perkins v. Alabama, 536 U.S. 953 , 122 S.Ct. 2653 , 153 L.Ed.2d 830 (2002) (where the jury indicated a vote of 11 jurors in favor of death when polled rather than 10 jurors in favor of death as reflected on the verdict form, it was clear that 1 of the jurors was affirming the jury’s vote rather his or her own and no error occurred).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Allen
v.
United States
v.
United States
01-7310.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 28, 2002.
Cited by 49 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of A… (1) · Ninth Circuit (1)
C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Ring v. Arizona, ante, p. 584.