green
Positive treatment
16.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Bellamy v. Graham
Smith v. Bordenkircher, 718 F.2d 1273 (4th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 976 (1984); see Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 961 (1991); United States v. Velazquez, 847 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. 1988); United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1060 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1081 (1986).
examined
Cited "see"
Johnson v. State
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Gray
(4×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 951 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); see also Resnover v. Pearson, 965 F.2d 1453, 1465 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 962 , 113 S.Ct. 2935 , 124 L.Ed.2d 685 (1993).
examined
Cited "see"
Lawhorn v. State
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994).
examined
Cited "see"
Hyde v. State
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991)." Sockwell v. State, 675 So.2d 4, 23 (Ala.Cr.
examined
Cited "see"
Andrew W. Six v. Paul K. Delo
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 951 (4th Cir.1990) (prosecutor’s comment that defendant had shown no remorse was not improper comment on failure to testify), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Andrew W. Six v. Paul K. Delo
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 951 (4th Cir. 1990) (prosecutor's comment that defendant had shown no remorse was not improper comment on failure to testify), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 961 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gualberto Garcia, United States of America v. Jorge Morera, United States of America v. Marshall Allen Slater
See James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 350 (1984) (upon request, trial court is obliged to instruct jury not to draw an adverse inference from accused's failure to testify). 55 Finding that the comments were not improper, we likewise cannot say that the statements "so infected the trial and sentencing with unfairness that the ultimate conviction and sentence constituted a denial of due process." Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 951 (4th Cir.1990) (finding no prosecutorial misconduct in saying the Government's evidence was undisputed because defendant could have contradicted that evidence witho…
examined
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Taylor
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar , 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991) (Justice Stevens, concurring specially).
examined
Cited "see"
Slaton v. State
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
examined
Cited "see"
Jaturun Siripongs v. Arthur Calderon, Warden
(6×)
Newton v. Superior Court of California, 803 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1070 , 107 S.Ct. 2464 , 95 L.Ed.2d 873 (1987); see Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 946-47 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
examined
Cited "see"
Daniels v. State
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar , 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of certiorari review); Ex parte White , 587 So.2d 1236 , 1237 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 , 112 S.Ct. 979 , 117 L.Ed.2d 142 (1992); McMillian v. State , 594 So.2d 1253 , 1282-83 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), remanded on other grounds, 594 So.2d 1288 (Ala. 1992). (11) Counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's practice of striking black veniremembers in violation of Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965).
examined
Cited "see"
Sockwell v. State
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 500 U.S. 961 , 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, ___ U.S.___, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of writ of certiorari and acknowledging that Cage is to be read narrowly and emphasizing the critical import of the "grave uncertainty" language), reh'g denied, ___ U.S.___, 112 S.Ct. 14 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1098 (1991); Smith v. State, 588 So.2d 561 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (finding no error in use of terms "actual and substantial doubt" and "moral certainty"); Adams v. State, 587 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (finding permissible use of terms "actual and substantial *604 doubt" and "moral certainty…
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Bryant
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, ____ U.S. ____, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of writ of certiorari and acknowledging that Cage is to be read narrowly and emphasizing the critical import of the "grave uncertainty" language), reh'g denied, ____ U.S. ____, 112 S.Ct. 14 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1098 (1991); see also Ex parte White, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991) (finding permissible an instruction that failed to equate reasonable doubt with "grave uncertainty" and "actual substantial doubt" and that did not require jury to find guilt to a "moral certainty"), cert. denied, ____ U.S.…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gray
(2×)
The instructions given by the military judge are virtually identical to the instructions found in the benchbook, 12 except for the first line in which he says “a doubt founded in reason.” The appellant relies almost exclusively upon the Cage decision which reversed a conviction because the jury instructions equated reasonable doubt with “grave uncertainty” and “actual substantial doubt.” Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 , 111 S.Ct. 328 , 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990); see Gaskins v. McKellar, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Montgomery
(3×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (Stevens, J., concurring in *755 denial of writ of certiorari and acknowledging that Cage is to be read narrowly and emphasizing the critical import of the "grave uncertainty" language), reh'g denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 14 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1098 (1991); see also Ex parte White, 587 So.2d 1236 (Ala.1991) (finding permissible an instruction that failed to equate reasonable doubt with "grave uncertainty" and "actual substantial doubt" and that did not require jury to find guilt to a "moral certainty"), cert. denied, ___ U.S.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mack v. State
(2×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2277, 2277 [ 114 L.Ed.2d 728 ] (1991) (where, in a memorandum opinion, Justice Stevens stated that he thought the Court correctly decided not to grant certiorari on the question of whether Cage announced a new rule because the jury instructions to be reviewed did not contain the specific language condemned in Cage , that a reasonable doubt ‘must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty’).” McGee v. State, 594 So.2d 219, 223 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Coral v. State
(2×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 2277, 2297 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991) (wherein, in a memorandum opinion, Justice Stevens stated that he thought that the Court correctly decided not to grant certiorari on the question of whether Cage announced a new rule, because the jury instructions to be reviewed did not contain the specific language condemned in Cage that a reasonable doubt "must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty").
discussed
Cited "see"
Washington v. Murray
(2×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 952 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Washington v. Murray
(2×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 952 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
McMillian v. State
(2×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2277, 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991) (wherein, in a memorandum opinion, Justice Stevens stated that he thought the Court correctly decided not to grant certiorari on the question of whether Cage announced a new rule because the jury instructions to be reviewed did not contain the specific language condemned in Cage that a reasonable doubt "must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty").
discussed
Cited "see"
McGee v. State
(2×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991) (where, in a memorandum opinion, Justice Stevens stated that he thought the Court correctly decided not to grant certiorari on the question of whether Cage announced a new rule because the jury instructions to be reviewed did not contain the specific language condemned in Cage , that a reasonable doubt "must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty").
discussed
Cited "see"
Donald Henry Gaskins v. Parker D. Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General
See Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941 (1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2277 (1991). 5 The district court has denied his latest petition in an exhaustive opinion which has thoroughly discussed the three issues he has raised. 6 At 6:00 p.m. he seeks a stay of execution pending full briefing and consideration of his appeal. 7 In his new petition, Gaskins presents three grounds: (1) that the trial judge refused to admit into evidence, during the sentencing phase of his trial, the confession of Tyner to the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Moon and thereby denied him the right under Payne v. Tennessee, --- U…
discussed
Cited "see"
Haney v. State
(2×)
See Gaskins v. McKellar, ___ U.S.___, 111 S.Ct. 2277, 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991) (wherein, in a memorandum opinion, Justice Stevens stated that he thought the Court correctly decided not to grant certiorari on the question of whether Cage announced a new rule, because the jury instructions to be reviewed did not contain the specific language condemned in Cage that a reasonable doubt "must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Dixon
(2×)
See, e.g., Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 950-51 (4th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); Waye v. Townley, 871 F.2d 18, 21 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 710 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina
(2×)
See, e.g., Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 950-51 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); Waye v. Townley, 871 F.2d 18, 21 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 710 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Dixon
(2×)
See, e.g., Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 950-51 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); Waye v. Townley, 871 F.2d 18, 21 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 710 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Kermit Smith, Jr. v. Gary Dixon, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina
(2×)
See, e.g., Gaskins v. McKellar, 916 F.2d 941, 950-51 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); Waye v. Townley, 871 F.2d 18, 21 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910 , 109 S.Ct. 3202 , 105 L.Ed.2d 710 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jenkins v. State
(2×)
See also Gaskins v. McKellar , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991). " 'In construing the instruction, we consider how reasonable jurors could have understood the charge as a whole.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hart v. State
(2×)
See also memorandum opinion issued by the Supreme Court, Gaskins v. McKellar , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Minshew v. State
(2×)
See also Gaskins v. McKellar , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2277 , 114 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991), wherein Justice Stevens, in a memorandum opinion explaining his reason for voting to deny the writ of certiorari, observed that because a charge did not contain the "improper language" of "grave uncertainty," it did not fall within the rule of Cage ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald H. Gaskins
v.
Kenneth D. McKellar Warden, South Carolina Department of Corrections
v.
Kenneth D. McKellar Warden, South Carolina Department of Corrections
90-7469.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 3, 1991.
Marshall.
Cited by 83 opinions | Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion
See U.S., 112 S.ct. 14.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Opinion of Justice STEVENS, respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.
One of the questions presented in the certiorari petition is whether our per curiam decision in Cage v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), announced a new rule. This question, however, would only be presented by the record if the instructions in this case contained the same flaw as the instructions in Cage. In Cage, the jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt "must be a doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty. . . ." Id., at ----, 111 S.Ct., at 329. Because the instructions to the jury in this case did not contain this improper language, the question whether Cage announced a new rule is not actually presented here. For this reason, I think the Court has correctly decided not to grant certiorari to review that question.
Justice MARSHALL, dissenting:
Lead Opinion
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for further consideration in light of Yates v. Evatt, ante, p. 391.
Opinion of Justice Stevens respecting the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.
One of the questions presented in the certiorari petition is whether our per curiam decision in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39 (1990), announced a new rule. This question, however, would only be presented by the record if the instructions in this case contained the same flaw as the instructions in Cage. In Cage, the jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt “ ‘must be [a] doubt as would give rise to a grave uncertainty. . . .’” Id., at 40 (emphasis omitted). Because the instructions to the jury in this case did not contain this improper language, the question whether Cage announced a new rule is not actually presented here. For this rea[*962] son, I think the Court has correctly decided not to grant certiorari to review that question.
Dissent
Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.