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 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Crosbygreen1 sentence2004Therefore, as the Eleventh Circuit recently acknowledged, "[j]ust as Apprendi `constitutes a procedural rule because it dictates what fact-finding procedure must be employed,' Ring constitutes a procedural rule because it dictates what fact-finding procedure must be employed in a capital sentencing hearing." Turner, 339 F.3d at 1284 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Allen Lambert v. Daniel McBride Superintendentgreen1 sentence2004The Eleventh Circuit "agree[d] with other courts who have concluded that because Apprendi was a procedural rule, it automatically follows that Ring is also a procedural rule." Id.; see *947 also Lambert, 365 F.3d at 562 ("Because the rule in Apprendi is not retroactive ..., it stands to follow that the rule in Ring , an Apprendi child, is not retroactive for the same reasons."); Towery, 64 P.3d at 833 ("Logic dictates that if Apprendi announced a procedural rule, then, by extension, Ring ... did also."); cf. Cannon v. Mullin, 297 F.3d 989, 994 (10th Cir.2002) (concluding, in the context of a s | 1 | 1 |
Cannon v. Mullingreen1 sentence2004The Eleventh Circuit "agree[d] with other courts who have concluded that because Apprendi was a procedural rule, it automatically follows that Ring is also a procedural rule." Id.; see *947 also Lambert, 365 F.3d at 562 ("Because the rule in Apprendi is not retroactive ..., it stands to follow that the rule in Ring , an Apprendi child, is not retroactive for the same reasons."); Towery, 64 P.3d at 833 ("Logic dictates that if Apprendi announced a procedural rule, then, by extension, Ring ... did also."); cf. Cannon v. Mullin, 297 F.3d 989, 994 (10th Cir.2002) (concluding, in the context of a s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Towerygreen1 sentence2004The Eleventh Circuit "agree[d] with other courts who have concluded that because Apprendi was a procedural rule, it automatically follows that Ring is also a procedural rule." Id.; see *947 also Lambert, 365 F.3d at 562 ("Because the rule in Apprendi is not retroactive ..., it stands to follow that the rule in Ring , an Apprendi child, is not retroactive for the same reasons."); Towery, 64 P.3d at 833 ("Logic dictates that if Apprendi announced a procedural rule, then, by extension, Ring ... did also."); cf. Cannon v. Mullin, 297 F.3d 989, 994 (10th Cir.2002) (concluding, in the context of a s | 1 | 1 |
Hodges v. Stateyellow1 sentence1992"The only part of Booth not overruled by Payne is `that the admission of a victim's family member's characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentences violates the Eighth Amendment.'" Hodges v. State, 595 So.2d 929, 933 (Fla. 1992) (quoting Payne, ___ U.S. at ___ n. 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2611 n. 2). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sumner v. Shuman
green
2 sentences2016The “heightened reliability demanded by the Eighth Amendment in the determination whether the death penalty is appropriate”; Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 , 107 S.Ct. 2716 , 97 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); convinces us that jury unanimity is an especially important safeguard at a capital sentencing hearing. 2016The “heightened reliability demanded by the Eighth Amendment in the determination whether the death penalty is appropriate”; Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 , 107 S.Ct. 2716 , 97 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); convinces us that jury unanimity is an especially important safeguard at a capital sentencing hearing. | 2 | 2006–2016 |
Payne v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences1992Recently, however, in Payne v. Tennessee, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2597 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), the United States Supreme Court receded from its holdings in 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." Id. ___ U.S. at ___ n. 2, 111 S.Ct. at 2611 n. 2. 1992In so holding the Court receded from the holdings in 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." Id. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Dixon
red
1 sentence2020Soon after the legislature adopted this capital sentencing framework, this Court in State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973), considered whether the new law passed muster under Furman. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2016The trial court was not able to consider how “children are different and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2469 . 2016The trial court was not able to consider how “children are different and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2469 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1982The fourth and final issue on appeal is whether the ruling of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), applies to a capital sentencing hearing and, if so, whether the state's actions here violated appellant's rights. 1982The fourth and final issue on appeal is whether the ruling of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), applies to a capital sentencing hearing and, if so, whether the state's actions here violated appellant's rights. | 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.