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.
8 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Witherspoon v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1984Appellant also contends that potential jurors were improperly excluded in violation of the Witherspoon rule that a jury culled of all jurors who harbor doubts about capital punishment is “a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.” Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968). 1984Appellant also contends that potential jurors were improperly excluded in violation of the Witherspoon rule that a jury culled of all jurors who harbor doubts about capital punishment is “a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.” Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mahomes v. State
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2020This precedent severely undercuts Witherspoon’s claim that Wicks must apply in the present case 2 because the alleged error impacts a “substantial right.” Moreover, “[t]he White court . . . declined to apply the fourth Wicks exception—that the evidence affected the defendant’s substantial rights—to a situation where, like here, there was a simple failure to make a contemporaneous objection at trial.” Id. | 2 | 2020–2022 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences1991In Wainright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged confusion resulting both from lower court application of the Witherspoon standard and its own variance from the Witherspoon standard in Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980). 1991In Wainright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged confusion resulting both from lower court application of the Witherspoon standard and its own variance from the Witherspoon standard in Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Adams v. Texas
green
2 sentences1991In Wainright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged confusion resulting both from lower court application of the Witherspoon standard and its own variance from the Witherspoon standard in Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980). 1991In Wainright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged confusion resulting both from lower court application of the Witherspoon standard and its own variance from the Witherspoon standard in Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hobbs v. State
green
2 sentences1983The Witherspoon rule, as interpreted in Hobbs v. State, 273 Ark. 125 , 617 S.W.2d 347 (1981) permits the exclusion of persons as prospective jurors only if they irrevocably oppose or favor the death penalty regardless of the evidence. 1983The Witherspoon rule, as interpreted in Hobbs v. State, 273 Ark. 125 , 617 S.W.2d 347 (1981) permits the exclusion of persons as prospective jurors only if they irrevocably oppose or favor the death penalty regardless of the evidence. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Boulden v. Holman
green
2 sentences1980There is language in that case, and in the later case of Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969), suggesting that a death sentence cannot be permitted to stand if a juror was excused in violation of the Witherspoon principle, which is: A venireman's opposition to capital punishment does not disqualify him unless he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal. 1980There is language in that case, and in the later case of Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969), suggesting that a death sentence cannot be permitted to stand if a juror was excused in violation of the Witherspoon principle, which is: A venireman's opposition to capital punishment does not disqualify him unless he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
McCree v. State
green
2 sentences1980In McCree v. State, 266 Ark. 466 , 585 S.W. 2d 938 (1979), we discussed the testimony of several prospective jurors who vacillated back and forth as they were questioned by the defense attorney and the State’s attorney but, when finally questioned by the judge, said they could not vote for the death penalty. 1980In McCree v. State, 266 Ark. 466 , 585 S.W. 2d 938 (1979), we discussed the testimony of several prospective jurors who vacillated back and forth as they were questioned by the defense attorney and the State’s attorney but, when finally questioned by the judge, said they could not vote for the death penalty. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Maxwell v. State
green
2 sentences1978See: Maxwell v. State, 236 Ark. 694 , 370 S.W. 2d 113 . 1978See: Maxwell v. State, 236 Ark. 694 , 370 S.W. 2d 113 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.