green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Loving v. United States
(2×)
See State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 390-91 , 64 P.3d 828, 832-33 , cert. dism’d, 539 U.S. 986 , 124 S.Ct. 44 , 156 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003) 49 As a predicate for discussing the possible retroactive application of Ring under the second exception of Teague , the Supreme Court further explained why Ring was a new procedural rule stating: Ring’s holding is properly classified as procedural.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hughes v. State
See State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386 , 64 P.3d 828, 835 (2003) (using the Linkletter elements to hold that Ring did not apply retroactively and noting that "[i]f the basic right to a jury trial *843 does not apply retroactively, then a right to a jury determination of aggravating circumstances that function essentially as elements of a greater offense also does not apply retroactively"), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 986 , 124 S.Ct. 44 , 156 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schriro v. Summerlin
(2×)
See State v. *355 Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, 390-391 , 64 P. 3d 828, 832-833 , cert. dism'd, 539 U. S. 986 (2003). [5] B Respondent argues in the alternative that Ring falls under the retroactivity exception for "`watershed rules of criminal procedure' implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding." Saffle, 494 U. S., at 495 (quoting Teague, 489 U. S., at 311 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yarborough, Warden
v.
Alvarado
v.
Alvarado
02-1684.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 30, 2003.
539 U.S. 986
Published
Yarborough, Warden
v.
Alvarado.
No. 02-1684.
Supreme Court of United States.
September 30, 2003.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 9th Cir.
2
Certiorari granted. Reported below: 316 F. 3d 841.