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.
11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Georgiagreen2 sentences1982In its reiteration of the Witherspoon rule the Court in Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339, 341 (1976), stated: “Unless a venireman is ‘irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings’ ... he cannot be excluded.. .. ” Here the three excused fall into the class properly excluded. 1982In its reiteration of the Witherspoon rule the Court in Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339, 341 (1976), stated: “Unless a venireman is ‘irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings’ ... he cannot be excluded.. .. ” Here the three excused fall into the class properly excluded. | 1 | 2 |
Timothy Wesley McCorquodale v. Charles Balkcom, Warden, Georgia State Prisongreen2 sentences1989McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 721 F.2d 1493, 1495-97 [1] (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S.Ct. 2161 , 80 L.Ed.2d 546 (1984). 1989McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 721 F.2d 1493, 1495-97 [1] (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S.Ct. 2161 , 80 L.Ed.2d 546 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Witherspoon v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1987See MAI-CR2d 23.02. [11] Under the Witherspoon standard, jurors were properly excluded for cause if they made it 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. 391 U.S. at 522 -23 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1776 -77 n. 21 (emphasis in original). [12] The federal definition states in pertinent part: Proof beyond a reasonable 1987See MAI-CR2d 23.02. [11] Under the Witherspoon standard, jurors were properly excluded for cause if they made it 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. 391 U.S. at 522 -23 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1776 -77 n. 21 (emphasis in original). [12] The federal definition states in pertinent part: Proof beyond a reasonable | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Texas
green
2 sentences1988It is argued that these excuses violated the Witherspoon test and that the court took an erroneous view of Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 420 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 850 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), which expressed the proper test in terms of the trial court’s conclusion that the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Witt in this sentence, with the use of a quotation borrowed from Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), sought to “clarify” Witherspoon . 1988It is argued that these excuses violated the Witherspoon test and that the court took an erroneous view of Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 420 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 850 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), which expressed the proper test in terms of the trial court’s conclusion that the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Witt in this sentence, with the use of a quotation borrowed from Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), sought to “clarify” Witherspoon . | 4 | 1987–1989 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences1988It is argued that these excuses violated the Witherspoon test and that the court took an erroneous view of Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 420 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 850 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), which expressed the proper test in terms of the trial court’s conclusion that the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Witt in this sentence, with the use of a quotation borrowed from Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), sought to “clarify” Witherspoon . 1988It is argued that these excuses violated the Witherspoon test and that the court took an erroneous view of Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 420 , 105 S.Ct. 844, 850 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), which expressed the proper test in terms of the trial court’s conclusion that the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Witt in this sentence, with the use of a quotation borrowed from Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), sought to “clarify” Witherspoon . | 2 | 1987–1988 |
Gray v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2002Gray, 481 U.S. at 660 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 . 2002Gray, 481 U.S. at 660 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Morgan v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1998For this reason, Morgan speaks of "a right to make inquiry" in the defendant, the purpose of which is to permit the defendant "to exercise intelligently his complementary challenge for cause against those biased persons on the venire who as jurors would unwaveringly impose death after a finding of guilt." Id. at 733 , 112 S.Ct. at 2232 . 1998For this reason, Morgan speaks of "a right to make inquiry" in the defendant, the purpose of which is to permit the defendant "to exercise intelligently his complementary challenge for cause against those biased persons on the venire who as jurors would unwaveringly impose death after a finding of guilt." Id. at 733 , 112 S.Ct. at 2232 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lockhart v. McCree
green
2 sentences1998For this reason, Morgan speaks of "a right to make inquiry" in the defendant, the purpose of which is to permit the defendant "to exercise intelligently his complementary challenge for cause against those biased persons on the venire who as jurors would unwaveringly impose death after a finding of guilt." Id. at 733 , 112 S.Ct. at 2232 . 1998For this reason, Morgan speaks of "a right to make inquiry" in the defendant, the purpose of which is to permit the defendant "to exercise intelligently his complementary challenge for cause against those biased persons on the venire who as jurors would unwaveringly impose death after a finding of guilt." Id. at 733 , 112 S.Ct. at 2232 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
McDermott Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
green
2 sentences1989McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 721 F.2d 1493, 1495-97 [1] (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S.Ct. 2161 , 80 L.Ed.2d 546 (1984). 1989McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 721 F.2d 1493, 1495-97 [1] (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S.Ct. 2161 , 80 L.Ed.2d 546 (1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Tomlin v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1989McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 721 F.2d 1493, 1495-97 [1] (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S.Ct. 2161 , 80 L.Ed.2d 546 (1984). 1989McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 721 F.2d 1493, 1495-97 [1] (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S.Ct. 2161 , 80 L.Ed.2d 546 (1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Burns v. Estelle
green
2 sentences1984Even one excuse in violation of the Witherspoon standard requires reversal of the death sentence, Burns v. Estelle, 592 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir.1979) and, surely, the Court may not correct an erroneous excuse simply because the juror himself could have asserted a statutory exemption from service. 1984Even one excuse in violation of the Witherspoon standard requires reversal of the death sentence, Burns v. Estelle, 592 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir.1979) and, surely, the Court may not correct an erroneous excuse simply because the juror himself could have asserted a statutory exemption from service. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Wigglesworth
green
2 sentences1981In Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123, 97 , S.Ct. 399, 400, 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976), the Court held that “if [one] venireman is improperly excluded [under the Witherspoon standard] any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand.” The Davis court cited Wigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 947 , 91 S.Ct. 2284 , 29 L.Ed.2d 857 (1971) rev’g State v. Wigglesworth, 18 Ohio St.2d 171 , 248 N.E.2d 607 (1969). 1981In Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123, 97 , S.Ct. 399, 400, 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976), the Court held that “if [one] venireman is improperly excluded [under the Witherspoon standard] any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand.” The Davis court cited Wigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 947 , 91 S.Ct. 2284 , 29 L.Ed.2d 857 (1971) rev’g State v. Wigglesworth, 18 Ohio St.2d 171 , 248 N.E.2d 607 (1969). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Quintana v. Texas
green
2 sentences1981In Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123, 97 , S.Ct. 399, 400, 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976), the Court held that “if [one] venireman is improperly excluded [under the Witherspoon standard] any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand.” The Davis court cited Wigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 947 , 91 S.Ct. 2284 , 29 L.Ed.2d 857 (1971) rev’g State v. Wigglesworth, 18 Ohio St.2d 171 , 248 N.E.2d 607 (1969). 1981In Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123, 97 , S.Ct. 399, 400, 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976), the Court held that “if [one] venireman is improperly excluded [under the Witherspoon standard] any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand.” The Davis court cited Wigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 947 , 91 S.Ct. 2284 , 29 L.Ed.2d 857 (1971) rev’g State v. Wigglesworth, 18 Ohio St.2d 171 , 248 N.E.2d 607 (1969). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Bumper v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1972In Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 , 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 , decided on the same day, the Court held expressly that the Witherspoon rule did not apply where defendant had received a life sentence and not death. 1972In Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 , 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 , decided on the same day, the Court held expressly that the Witherspoon rule did not apply where defendant had received a life sentence and not death. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.