5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Warren Wesley Summerlin v. Terry L. Stewart, Director of Arizona Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Lovelace (Lovelace II), 140 Idaho 73, 80 , 90 P.3d 298, 205 (2004) (“We conclude that Ring error is not susceptible to harmless-error analysis in this case.”); see also Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F.3d 1082, 1119 (2003) (“Given [Ring’s] declaration that a defendant is entitled 41 under the Sixth Amendment to a jury verdict in the penalty phase of a capital case, the substitution of a non-jury verdict cannot be subject to harmless-error analysis.”). 2010See State v. Lovelace (Lovelace II), 140 Idaho 73, 80 , 90 P.3d 298, 205 (2004) (“We conclude that Ring error is not susceptible to harmless-error analysis in this case.”); see also Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F.3d 1082, 1119 (2003) (“Given [Ring’s] declaration that a defendant is entitled 41 under the Sixth Amendment to a jury verdict in the penalty phase of a capital case, the substitution of a non-jury verdict cannot be subject to harmless-error analysis.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lovelacegreen2 sentences2010See State v. Lovelace (Lovelace II), 140 Idaho 73, 80 , 90 P.3d 298, 205 (2004) (“We conclude that Ring error is not susceptible to harmless-error analysis in this case.”); see also Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F.3d 1082, 1119 (2003) (“Given [Ring’s] declaration that a defendant is entitled 41 under the Sixth Amendment to a jury verdict in the penalty phase of a capital case, the substitution of a non-jury verdict cannot be subject to harmless-error analysis.”). 2010See State v. Lovelace (Lovelace II), 140 Idaho 73, 80 , 90 P.3d 298, 205 (2004) (“We conclude that Ring error is not susceptible to harmless-error analysis in this case.”); see also Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F.3d 1082, 1119 (2003) (“Given [Ring’s] declaration that a defendant is entitled 41 under the Sixth Amendment to a jury verdict in the penalty phase of a capital case, the substitution of a non-jury verdict cannot be subject to harmless-error analysis.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Danforth v. Minnesota
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded Hairston II because of Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008), but only as to the Ring claim. 2020The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded Hairston II because of Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008), but only as to the Ring claim. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Hairston v. Idaho
neutral
2 sentences2020Hairston v. Idaho, 552 U.S. 1227 (2008). 2020Hairston v. Idaho, 552 U.S. 1227 (2008). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Schriro v. Summerlin
green
2 sentences2014Rhoades, 149 Idaho at 140 , 233 P.3d at 71 (citing Schriro, 542 U.S. at 355-56 , 124 S.Ct. at 2524-25 , 159 L.Ed.2d at 450-51 ). 2014Rhoades, 149 Idaho at 140 , 233 P.3d at 71 (citing Schriro, 542 U.S. at 355-56 , 124 S.Ct. at 2524-25 , 159 L.Ed.2d at 450-51 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Rhoades v. State
green
2 sentences2014Rhoades, 149 Idaho at 140 , 233 P.3d at 71 (citing Schriro, 542 U.S. at 355-56 , 124 S.Ct. at 2524-25 , 159 L.Ed.2d at 450-51 ). 2014Rhoades, 149 Idaho at 140 , 233 P.3d at 71 (citing Schriro, 542 U.S. at 355-56 , 124 S.Ct. at 2524-25 , 159 L.Ed.2d at 450-51 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2008The Sixth Amendment entitles capital defendants “to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment.” Ring, 536 U.S. at 589 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.