Cases pin-citing Francis · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Francis

Cases pin-citing Francis

Francis v. Franklin  ·  1985  ·  152 pinpoint citations from 59 cases, 38 distinct passages.

Irvin v. Attica Correctional Facility  ·  2024-03-27  ·  W.D. New York  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Absent . . . extraordinary situations . . . we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
United States v. Brent Brewbaker  ·  2023-12-01  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions . . . and follow the instructions given them.”
Carey v. Superintendent, Washington Correctional Facility  ·  2023-01-30  ·  W.D. New York  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Franklin”
Veach v. State Farm Lloyds  ·  2022-05-23  ·  N.D. Texas  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
People of Michigan v. Ernesto Evaristo Uribe  ·  2021-08-13  ·  Michigan Supreme Court  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Cases may arise in which the risk of prejudice inhering in material put before the jury may be so great that even a limiting instruction will not adequately protect a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.”
People of Michigan v. Ernesto Evaristo Uribe  ·  2021-08-13  ·  Michigan Supreme Court  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Cases may arise in which the risk of prejudice inhering in material put before the jury may be so great that even a limiting instruction will not adequately protect a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.”
Raul Lopez v. State  ·  2020-11-17  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them.”
Robinson v. City of St. Louis, Missouri  ·  2020-06-22  ·  E.D. Missouri  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“[J]uries are presumed to be able to follow and understand the court’s instructions.”
Laughlin v. Biomet, Inc.  ·  2020-03-18  ·  D. Maryland  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Powell v. Sherman  ·  2020-01-16  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“The Court 20 presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language 21 of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and 22 follow the instructions given them”
Harbold v. Biomet Orthopedics LLC  ·  2019-11-18  ·  D. Maryland  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Harris v. Biomet Orthopedics LLC  ·  2019-11-18  ·  D. Maryland  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Ringley v. Biomet, Inc.  ·  2019-11-18  ·  D. Maryland  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Narcisse v. Valenzuela  ·  2019-11-13  ·  N.D. California  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity 23 of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal 24 case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them”
United States v. Mansour Sanjar  ·  2017-11-30  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“The acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the product of the person’s will ... ”
United States v. Mansour Sanjar  ·  2017-03-27  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“The acts of a person of sound mind and discretion are presumed to be the product of the person’s will ...”
Frett v. People  ·  2017-02-22  ·  Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 344
“The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them.”
Shawn Bahrs v. Wexford Health Sources, Incorp  ·  2016-04-14  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Sometimes other jury instructions can explain with sufficient clarity any ambiguity in a challenged instruction.”
Jennifer Henderson v. Deborah Johnson  ·  2015-12-21  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“A permissive inference violates the Due Process Clause only if the suggested conclusion is not one that reason and common sense justify in light of the proven facts before the jury.”
United States v. Francisco Colorado Cessa  ·  2015-05-07  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  pin 105 S. Ct. at 1965
“A permissive inference suggests to the jury a possible conclusion to be drawn if the State proves predicate facts, but does not require the jury to draw that conclusion.”
Paul H. Evans v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections  ·  2012-10-23  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 S. Ct. at 307
“We presume that juries follow the instructions given to them.”
Paul H. Evans v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections  ·  2012-10-23  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“[W]e adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Lederman v. Frontier Fire Protection, Inc.  ·  2012-07-11  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“A reviewing *1160 court has no way of knowing which of the two irreconcilable instructions the jurors applied in reaching their verdict.”
Black v. Workman  ·  2012-06-14  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them.”
Hernandez v. Martel  ·  2011-08-16  ·  C.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“[W]e adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Shauntay Wheaton v. McDaniel  ·  2011-01-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“A permissive inference does not relieve the State of its burden of persuasion because it still requires the State to convince the jury that the suggested conclusion should be inferred based on the predicate facts proved.”
United States v. Shynita Townsend  ·  2011-01-13  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 S. Ct. at 307
“[W]e adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
United States v. Shynita Townsend  ·  2011-01-13  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 S. Ct. at 307
“[W]e adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
United States v. Shynita Townsend  ·  2011-01-13  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“[W]e adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
United States v. Lujan  ·  2010-04-29  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"Absent. . . extraordinary situations, . . . we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions."
Nguyen v. Cate  ·  2009-09-03  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Nguyen v. Cate  ·  2009-09-03  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Frank Matylinsky v. Michael Budge  ·  2009-08-18  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Matylinsky v. Budge  ·  2009-08-18  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“Absent such extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
United States v. Ontario Rush-Richardson  ·  2009-08-04  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal -9- case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them.”
United States v. Rush-Richardson  ·  2009-08-04  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court's instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them."
United States v. Ontario Rush-Richardson  ·  2009-07-09  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  pin 471 U.S. at 307
“The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court’s instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them.”
United States v. Rush-Richardson  ·  2009-07-09  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court's instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them."
Hiskas v. Pliler  ·  2007-12-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“Language that merely contradicts and does not explain a constitutionally infirm instruction will not suffice to absolve the infirmity.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Stewart  ·  2007-09-27  ·  Mississippi Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"To say that the jury might have been confused amounts to nothing more than an unfounded speculation that the jurors disregarded clear instruction of the court in arriving at their verdict"
Richard Joseph, Petitioner-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Ralph Coyle, Warden, Respondent-Appellee/cross-Appellant  ·  2006-11-09  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 344
“Language that merely contradicts and does not explain a constitutionally infirm instruction will not suffice to absolve the infirmity. A reviewing court has no way of knowing which of the two irreconcilable instructions the jurors applied in reaching their verdict.”
The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Patty M. Mace Stewart  ·  2006-02-28  ·  Mississippi Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“To say that the jury might have been confused amounts to nothing more than an unfounded speculation that the jurors disregarded clear instruction of the court in arriving at their verdict”
Morrisette v. WARDEN OF SUSSEX I  ·  2005-06-03  ·  Supreme Court of Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"`whether a defendant has been accorded his constitutional rights depends upon the way in which a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction'"
Stephen Ho v. Thomas L. Carey, Warden Attorney General of the State of California  ·  2003-06-05  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court's instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them."
Stephen Ho v. Anthony Newland, Warden of Solano State Prison Attorney General of the State of California  ·  2003-02-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"The Court presumes that jurors, conscious of the gravity of their task, attend closely the particular language of the trial court's instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them."
David Gerbier v. M. Francis Holmes, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General.  ·  2002-02-08  ·  Third Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
"Our cases make clear that `[] ... shifting of the burden of persuasion with respect to a fact which the State deems so important that it must be either proved or presumed is impermissible under the Due Process Clause.'"
United States v. Anthony J. Giordano, Sr.  ·  2001-08-15  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 344
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... prohibits the State from using evidentiary presumptions in a jury charge that have the effect of relieving the State of its burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt of every essential element of a crime.”
United States v. Billie Jerome Allen, United States of America v. Norris G. Holder  ·  2001-05-07  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“[a]bsent [ ] extraordinary situations, however, we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions”
Rodriguez v. Zavaras  ·  1999-04-01  ·  D. Colorado  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“we adhere to the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions.”
Burral v. State  ·  1997-11-26  ·  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 105 L. Ed. 2d at 307
“A permissive inference suggests to the jury a possible conclusion to be drawn if the State proves predicate facts, but does not require the jury to draw that conclusion.”
Page 1 of 4   Next →