10 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
Charles Silagy, Cross-Appellant v. Howard Peters, Iii, Warden, Pontiac Correctional Center, Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2018Lay , 2008 OK CR 7 , ¶ 5, 179 P.3d at 619 ; see Silagy v. Peters, 905 F.2d 986 , 1007 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that Faretta grants a defendant the right to self-representation in a capital sentencing hearing and there exists no logical reason to deny a death-eligible defendant his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation). 6 Appellant has cited no new precedent which would cause this Court to overrule its holding in Lay . 2018Lay , 2008 OK CR 7, ¶ 5 , 179 P.3d at 619 ; see Silagy v. Peters, 905 F.2d 986, 1007 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that Faretta grants a defendant the right to self-representation in a capital sentencing hearing and there exists no logical reason to deny a death-eligible defendant his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation). 6 Appellant has cited no new precedent which would cause this Court to overrule its holding in Lay . | 2 | 2 |
Turner v. Murraygreen2 sentences2017The Supreme Court explained that "[b]ecause of the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing, there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate but remain undetected." Id., 476 U.S. at 35, 106 S.Ct. at 1687. 2017The Supreme Court explained that "[b]ecause of the range of discretion entrusted to a jury in a capital sentencing hearing, there is a unique opportunity for racial prejudice to operate but remain undetected." Id., 476 U.S. at 35, 106 S.Ct. at 1687. | 1 | 2 |
Cooper-Smith Co. v. Bellgreen2 sentences2017Bosse, 137 S.Ct. at 2 . ¶ 16 This Court’s confusion stemmed from its treatment of footnote 2 in Payne , which states: Our holding today is limited to the holdings of Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 , 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. 2017Bosse , 137 S.Ct. at 2. ¶16 This Court's confusion stemmed from its treatment of footnote 2 in Payne , which states: Our holding today is limited to the holdings of Booth v. Maryland , 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers , 490 U.S. 805, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim's death on the victim's family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. | 1 | 2 |
Payne v. Tennesseegreen2 sentences1995See Id., 501 U.S. at 830 n 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2611 n. 2. ("Our holding today is limited to the holdings of [ Booth and Gathers ], that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim's death on the victim's family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. 1995See Id., 501 U.S. at 830 n 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2611 n. 2. ("Our holding today is limited to the holdings of [Booth and Gathers ], that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences1995See Id., 501 U.S. at 830 n 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2611 n. 2. ("Our holding today is limited to the holdings of [ Booth and Gathers ], that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim's death on the victim's family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. 1995See Id., 501 U.S. at 830 n 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2611 n. 2. ("Our holding today is limited to the holdings of [Booth and Gathers ], that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
South Carolina v. Gathers
red
2 sentences2017Bosse, 137 S.Ct. at 2 . ¶ 16 This Court’s confusion stemmed from its treatment of footnote 2 in Payne , which states: Our holding today is limited to the holdings of Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 , 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. 2017Bosse, 137 S.Ct. at 2 . ¶ 16 This Court’s confusion stemmed from its treatment of footnote 2 in Payne , which states: Our holding today is limited to the holdings of Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 , 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. | 4 | 2015–2017 |
Booth v. Maryland
red
2 sentences2017Bosse, 137 S.Ct. at 2 . ¶ 16 This Court’s confusion stemmed from its treatment of footnote 2 in Payne , which states: Our holding today is limited to the holdings of Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 , 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. 2017Bosse, 137 S.Ct. at 2 . ¶ 16 This Court’s confusion stemmed from its treatment of footnote 2 in Payne , which states: Our holding today is limited to the holdings of Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 , 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 , 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), that evidence and argument relating to the victim and the impact of the victim’s death on the victim’s family are inadmissible at a capital sentencing hearing. | 4 | 2015–2017 |
Lay v. State
green
2 sentences2018Lay , 2008 OK CR 7 , ¶ 5, 179 P.3d at 619 ; see Silagy v. Peters, 905 F.2d 986 , 1007 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that Faretta grants a defendant the right to self-representation in a capital sentencing hearing and there exists no logical reason to deny a death-eligible defendant his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation). 6 Appellant has cited no new precedent which would cause this Court to overrule its holding in Lay . 2018Lay , 2008 OK CR 7 , ¶ 5, 179 P.3d at 619 ; see Silagy v. Peters, 905 F.2d 986 , 1007 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that Faretta grants a defendant the right to self-representation in a capital sentencing hearing and there exists no logical reason to deny a death-eligible defendant his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation). 6 Appellant has cited no new precedent which would cause this Court to overrule its holding in Lay . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Poland v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006The court refused to "view the capital sentencing hearing as a set of minitrials on the existence of each aggravating circumstance" because aggravating circumstances are not separate penalties or offenses; rather they are the standards that guide the sentencer's choice between the alternative verdicts of death and life imprisonment. [19] Id. at 156 , 106 S.Ct. at 1755 . 2006The court refused to "view the capital sentencing hearing as a set of minitrials on the existence of each aggravating circumstance" because aggravating circumstances are not separate penalties or offenses; rather they are the standards that guide the sentencer's choice between the alternative verdicts of death and life imprisonment. [19] Id. at 156 , 106 S.Ct. at 1755 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.