Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1982–1999 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1999The Witherspoon standard, as commonly applied at the time, permitted excusing only Jhose jurors who make "unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them, or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt." Id. at 522 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770 (emphasis in original). 1999The Witherspoon standard, as commonly applied at the time, permitted excusing only Jhose jurors who make "unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial of the case before them, or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt." Id. at 522 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770 (emphasis in original). | 2 | 1992–1999 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences1999In Witt , the Supreme Court made clear that the Court’s holding in Witherspoon "focused only on circumstances under which prospective jurors could not be excluded; under Wither-spoon’s facts it was unnecessary to decide when they could be.’’ Witt, 469 U.S. at 422 , 105 S.Ct. 844 (emphasis in original). 1999In Witt , the Supreme Court made clear that the Court’s holding in Witherspoon "focused only on circumstances under which prospective jurors could not be excluded; under Wither-spoon’s facts it was unnecessary to decide when they could be.’’ Witt, 469 U.S. at 422 , 105 S.Ct. 844 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Fermin v. United States
green
2 sentences1992Appellant argues that because of Indiana's unique constitutional provision, exclusion of jurors who do not meet the Witherspoon standard (Witherspoon v. Illinois (1963), 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 LEd.2d 776, reh'g denied, 393 U.S. 898 , 89 S.Ct. 67 , 21 LEd.2d 186) is improper because it is discriminatory to the juror and the defendant. 1992Appellant argues that because of Indiana's unique constitutional provision, exclusion of jurors who do not meet the Witherspoon standard (Witherspoon v. Illinois (1963), 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 LEd.2d 776, reh'g denied, 393 U.S. 898 , 89 S.Ct. 67 , 21 LEd.2d 186) is improper because it is discriminatory to the juror and the defendant. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hoskins v. State
green
2 sentences1992Appellant argues that our decision in Hoskins v. State (1982), 441 N.E.2d 419 , in which we rely upon the reasoning in Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 88 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 , is not disposi-tive of the issue because neither case involved a consideration of exclusion of jurors pursuant to Witherspoon where the jurors also serve as judges of the law as well as of the facts. 1992Appellant argues that our decision in Hoskins v. State (1982), 441 N.E.2d 419 , in which we rely upon the reasoning in Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 88 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 , is not disposi-tive of the issue because neither case involved a consideration of exclusion of jurors pursuant to Witherspoon where the jurors also serve as judges of the law as well as of the facts. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Adams v. Texas
green
2 sentences1992Appellant argues that our decision in Hoskins v. State (1982), 441 N.E.2d 419 , in which we rely upon the reasoning in Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 88 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 , is not disposi-tive of the issue because neither case involved a consideration of exclusion of jurors pursuant to Witherspoon where the jurors also serve as judges of the law as well as of the facts. 1992Appellant argues that our decision in Hoskins v. State (1982), 441 N.E.2d 419 , in which we rely upon the reasoning in Adams v. Texas (1980), 448 U.S. 88 , 100 S.Ct. 2521 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 , is not disposi-tive of the issue because neither case involved a consideration of exclusion of jurors pursuant to Witherspoon where the jurors also serve as judges of the law as well as of the facts. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Monserrate v. State
green
2 sentences1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . 1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Daniels v. State
green
2 sentences1990It is then the duty of the trial court to pursue the matter further until it is established that the juror is ‘irrevocably committed’ to vote against the death penalty.” Daniels, supra at 166 . 1990It is then the duty of the trial court to pursue the matter further until it is established that the juror is ‘irrevocably committed’ to vote against the death penalty.” Daniels, supra at 166 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Burris v. State
green
2 sentences1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . 1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Shumate v. Douthat
green
2 sentences1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . 1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lipton
green
2 sentences1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . 1990Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1132 , 105 S.Ct. 816 , 83 L.Ed.2d 809 (1985); Monserrate v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lockhart v. McCree
green
2 sentences1990Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986); Monserrate, 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . 1990Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986); Monserrate, 256 Ind. 623 , 271 N.E.2d 420 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bumper v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1982Bumper v. North Carolina, (1968) 391 U.S. 543, 544 , 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1790 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797, 800 , Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450, 460 , 288 N.E.2d 155, 162 . 1982Bumper v. North Carolina, (1968) 391 U.S. 543, 544 , 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1790 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797, 800 , Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450, 460 , 288 N.E.2d 155, 162 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Shack v. State
green
2 sentences1982Bumper v. North Carolina, (1968) 391 U.S. 543, 544 , 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1790 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797, 800 , Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450, 460 , 288 N.E.2d 155, 162 . 1982Bumper v. North Carolina, (1968) 391 U.S. 543, 544 , 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1790 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797, 800 , Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450, 460 , 288 N.E.2d 155, 162 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.