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

Cases pin-citing McCleskey

McCleskey v. Kemp  ·  1987  ·  105 pinpoint citations from 40 cases, 32 distinct passages.

United States v. Keith Moore  ·  2025-08-01  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“[T]o prevail under the Equal Protection Clause, [a party] must prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose”
Virginia State Conference NAACP v. County School Board of Shenandoah County  ·  2025-01-22  ·  W.D. Virginia  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“Although the history of racial discrimination in this country is undeniable, we cannot accept official actions taken long ago as evidence of current intent.”
Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. DC  ·  2023-08-15  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“[T]he capacity of prosecutorial discretion to provide individualized justice is firmly entrenched in American law.”
United States v. Xiaorong You  ·  2023-07-11  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“Appeals to racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice during the course of a trial violate a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial.”
Hale v. Shoop  ·  2022-03-01  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“Our analysis begins with the basic principle that a defendant who alleges an equal protection violation has the burden of proving ‘the existence of purposeful discrimination.’”
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: Joseph Andrew Richmond  ·  2021-03-18  ·  Court of Appeals of Washington  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“prosecutorial discretion cannot be exercised on the basis of race”
In re: Michael Flynn  ·  2020-06-24  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“[T]he duty of the United States Attorney [is] not simply to prosecute but to do justice.”
State v. Ramseur  ·  2020-06-05  ·  Supreme Court of North Carolina  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“McCleskey’s arguments are best presented to the legislative bodies. It is not the responsibility—or indeed even the right—of this Court to determine the appropriate punishment for particular crimes.”
State v. Ramseur  ·  2020-06-05  ·  Supreme Court of North Carolina  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“McCleskey’s arguments are best presented to the legislative bodies. It is not the responsibility—or indeed even the right—of this Court to determine the appropriate punishment for particular crimes.”
State v. Ramseur  ·  2020-06-05  ·  Supreme Court of North Carolina  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
“McCleskey’s arguments are best presented to the legislative bodies. It is not the responsibility—or indeed even the right—of this Court to determine the appropriate punishment for particular crimes.”
Commonwealth v. Colon  ·  2019-05-03  ·  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court  ·  pin 95 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"What, though, does 'ethnicity' and 'ethnic origin' mean .... And how does one define 'race' when the understanding of 'race' itself has changed over the centuries?"
McClean v. Duke Univ.  ·  2019-03-25  ·  M.D. North Carolina  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"[A] defendant who alleges an equal protection violation has the burden of proving the existence of purposeful discrimination."
Raza v. City of New York  ·  2013-11-22  ·  E.D. New York  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“to prevail under the Equal Protection Clause, [plaintiff] must prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose”
Armenia Cudjo, Jr. v. Robert Ayers, Jr.  ·  2012-09-28  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“The Constitution prohibits racially biased prosecutorial arguments.”
United States v. Moore  ·  2011-06-03  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“statistical proof normally must present a ‘stark’ pattern to be accepted as the sole proof of discriminatory intent under the Constitution”
Joy Renee Watkins v. Commonwealth of Kentucky  ·  2011-04-20  ·  Kentucky Supreme Court  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
"Widespread bias in the community can make a change of venue constitutionally required."
Patrick Allen Watkins v. Commonwealth of Kentucky  ·  2011-04-20  ·  Kentucky Supreme Court  ·  pin 481 U.S. at 279
"Widespread bias in the community can make a change of venue constitutionally required."
Moreland v. Bradshaw  ·  2009-04-10  ·  S.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“[T]he capacity of prosecutorial discretion is firmly entrenched in American law.”
United States v. Anderson  ·  2009-02-18  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“The Constitution prohibits racially biased prosecutorial arguments.”
United States v. Mitchell  ·  2007-09-05  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"[T]o prevail under the Equal Protection Clause, McCleskey must prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose."
In Re Application for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Ross  ·  2005-01-27  ·  Supreme Court of Connecticut  ·  5 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"we hold that the Baldus study is clearly insufficient to support an inference that any of the decisionmakers in [the defendant's] case acted *576 with discriminatory purpose"
Saldano v. Dretke  ·  2004-04-08  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“The Constitution prohibits racially biased prosecutorial arguments.”
Saldano v. Roach  ·  2004-03-23  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"The Constitution prohibits racially biased prosecutorial arguments."
United States v. Perez  ·  2002-08-02  ·  D. Connecticut  ·  pin 95 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“In contrast to the carefully defined standards that must narrow a sentencer’s discretion to impose the death sentence, the Constitution limits a State’s ability to narrow a sentencer’s discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to decline to impose the death sentence.”
United States v. Scott Lukse, Also Known as Scott Luxley (00-6054) Joshua Hight (00-6077)  ·  2002-04-17  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“Where the discretion that is fundamental to our criminal process is involved, we decline to assume that what is unexplained is invidious.”
United States v. Edelin  ·  2001-03-09  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“Because discretion is essential to the criminal justice process, we would demand exceptionally clear proof before we would infer that the discretion has been abused.”
Miguel Angel Flores v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division  ·  2000-04-20  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"[T]he Constitution limits a State's ability to narrow a sentencer's discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to decline to impose the death sentence."
United States v. Walker  ·  1999-03-31  ·  Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“The Constitution prohibits racially biased prosecutorial arguments.”
United States v. Medina  ·  1999-01-13  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“the capacity of prosecutorial discretion to provide individualized justice is ‘firmly entrenched in American law.’ 2 W. LaFave & D. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 13.2(a), p. 160 (1984). As we have noted, a prosecutor can decline to charge, offer a plea bargain ... ”
United States v. Frank  ·  1998-05-06  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“a State must' ‘narrow the class of murderers subject to capital punishment’”
Hall v. Holder  ·  1997-07-08  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"unless historical evidence is reasonably contemporaneous with the challenged decision, it has little probative value"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maximiliano GOMEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellee  ·  1995-08-04  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“[sjince decisions whether to prosecute and what to charge necessarily are individualized and involve infinite factual variations, coordination among district attorney offices across a State would be relatively meaningless”
Wallace v. State  ·  1995-03-27  ·  Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma  ·  pin 95 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"States cannot limit the sentencer's consideration of any relevant circumstance that could cause it to decline to impose the penalty. In this respect, the State cannot channel the sentencer's discretion, but must allow it to consider any relevant information offered by the defendant."
Ricketts v. City Of Columbia  ·  1994-12-09  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"discretion is essential to the criminal justice process"
United States v. Michael D. Johnson, United States of America v. Kevin Lamont Thomas, United States of America v. Dwayne Antonio Thomas  ·  1994-11-22  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“unless historical evidence is reasonably contemporaneous with the challenged decision, it has little probative value.”
Ricketts v. City of Columbia  ·  1994-10-11  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“discretion is essential to the criminal justice process”
Perkins v. Lake County Department of Utilities  ·  1994-08-11  ·  N.D. Ohio  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“in our heterogeneous society the lower courts have found the boundaries of race and ethnicity increasingly difScult to determine.”
State v. Bey  ·  1994-06-30  ·  Supreme Court of New Jersey  ·  5 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
"Each jury is unique in its composition, and the Constitution requires that its decision rest on innumerable factors."
Kavin Wayne Lincecum v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division  ·  1992-04-07  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 107 L. Ed. 2d at 262
“The capital sentencing decision requires the individual jurors to focus their collective judgment on the unique characteristics of a particular criminal defendant.”
Page 1 of 3   Next →