Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya
Ariz. · 2024 · confidence medium
In fact, excusing a juror because of his “views on capital punishment” is structural error that requires reversal, State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 , 552 ¶ 46 (2003), unless the juror is “irrevocably committed” to vote for or against the death penalty “regardless of the facts and circumstances,” Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 522 n.21 (1968)); see also Morgan, 504 U.S. at 728–29. ¶76 Additionally, we have previously rejected the argument that a potential juror’s response that the death …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DUCLOS v. STATE
(2×)
Okla. Crim. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Among these are a faulty jury instruction on reasonable doubt, Sullivan v. Louisiana , 508 U.S. 275, 282, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2083, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); intentional racial discrimination in selection of grand jurors, Vasquez v. Hillery , 474 U.S. 254, 263-64, 106 S.Ct. 617, 623, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); denial of the right to a public trial, Waller v. Georgia , 467 U.S. 39, 49, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 2217, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984); denial of the right to self-representation, McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168, 177 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 944, 950 n. 8, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); improper exclusion of qualified capital …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Lambert
9th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Gray, 481 U.S. at 659 -60 (citing Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123-24 (1976) (per curiam) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Stewart
Cal. · 2004 · confidence medium
(Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt); Davis v. Georgia (1976) 429 U.S. 122, 123 [ 50 L.Ed.2d 339 , 97 S.Ct. 399 ]; Gray v. Mississippi (1987) 481 U.S. 648, 659-667 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 622 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 ] (opn. of the court); id., at pp. 667-668 (plur. opn.); id., at p. 672 (cone. opn. of Powell, J.).) I.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Heard
Cal. · 2003 · confidence medium
(See Gray v. Mississippi (1987) 481 U.S. 648 , 664—666, 668 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 622 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 ]; Davis v. Georgia (1976) 429 U.S. 122, 123 [ 50 L.Ed.2d 339 , 97 S.Ct. 399 ].) Accordingly, under compulsion of these applicable federal decisions, we shall reverse the judgment as to the sentence of death and remand the matter for a new penalty trial before a properly selected jury.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Szuchon v. Lehman
3rd Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Gray, 481 U.S. at 668 ; Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shajuan Lee McRae v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
For examples of capital cases that review the propriety of having struck a qualified juror, see Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45-50 (1980) (erroneous exclusion of juror in capital murder trial violated 6th and 14th Amendments; states may not execute sentence of death where even one putative juror has been excluded merely because of general objection to capital punishment); Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976) (holding that venireperson is properly excluded only if he or she is "'irrevocably committed'" against death penalty regardless of facts and circumstances that might emerge at trial;…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Warden
6th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 668 (1988); Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976) (holding that the improper exclusion of one veniremember out of 83 was reversible error).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rhines
(2×)
S.D. · 1996 · confidence medium
Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339, 341 (1976); see also Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 , 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987) (plurality opinion).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Farina v. State
Fla. · 1996 · confidence medium
See generally Davis; see also Gray, 481 U.S. at 659 , 107 S.Ct. at 2052 ; Davis, 429 U.S. at 123 , 97 S.Ct. at 400 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gray v. Mississippi
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
SCOTUS · 1987 · confidence medium
As the Court observes, we have said that “if a venireman is improperly excluded [for cause], any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand.” Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122, 123 (1976) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wainwright v. Witt
(2×)
SCOTUS · 1985 · confidence medium
Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122, 123 (1976).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Clark O'Bryan v. W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: contra · confidence medium
Alderman v. Austin, 663 F.2d 558 , 564 n. 7 (5th Cir.1982), aff'd in relevant part, 695 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc); Granviel v. Estelle, 655 F.2d 673, 678 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003 , 102 S.Ct. 1636 , 71 L.Ed.2d 870 (1982); Burns v. Estelle, 592 F.2d 1297, 1299 (5th Cir.1979), aff'd, 626 F.2d 396 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc); contra, Davis, supra, 429 U.S. at 124 , 97 S.Ct. at 400 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). 24 A. The Standard of Appellate Review. 25 As a threshold matter, we address the question of the appropriate standard of appellate review in federal habeas proceedings…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chandler v. State
Fla. · 1983 · confidence medium
Id. at 123, 97 S.Ct. at 400 (citations omitted, emphasis supplied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Henry Hance v. Walter D. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center
11th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
The scope of this holding is clarified by Justice Rehnquist in dissent who refers to it as “a per se rule that precludes application of even the harmless-error test of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ] (1967).” 429 U.S. at 123-24 , 97 S.Ct. at 399-400; accord Burns v. Estelle, 592 F.2d 1297, 1299-1300 (5th Cir.1979), adhered to, 626 F.2d 396 (1980) (en banc); Moore v. Estelle, 670 F.2d 56, 57 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 3495 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1375 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Newlon
(2×)
Mo. · 1982 · confidence medium
In its reiteration of the Witherspoon rule the Court in Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339, 341 (1976), stated: “Unless a venireman is ‘irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings’ ... he cannot be excluded.. .. ” Here the three excused fall into the class properly excluded.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Clark
R.I. · 1980 · confidence medium
Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 399-400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339, 341 (1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Collins v. State
Ga. · 1979 · confidence medium
This complies with Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 511 (1968); Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122, 123 (1976); and Goodwin v. Hopper, 243 Ga. 193 (1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Commonwealth
Va. · 1978 · confidence medium
Veniremen may not constitutionally be excluded for cause “simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction”, Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 522 (1968), and exclusion of a single veniremen for such cause renders the death penalty constitutionally infirm, Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alderman v. State
(2×)
Ga. · 1978 · confidence medium
In Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122, 123 (97 SC 399, 50 LE2d 339) (1976), the court said in a per curiam opinion: "Unless a venireman is `irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings' ( 391 U. S. at 522 n. 21), he cannot be excluded; if a venireman is improperly excluded even though not so committed, any subsequently imposed death penalty cannot stand." In reaching this conclusion the court cited Harris v. Texas, 403 U. S. 947 (1971), which reversed the death p…
examined
Cited "see"
Wolfe v. Clarke
(6×)
E.D. Va. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Gray, 481 U.S. at 668 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 (“because the Witherspoon-Witt standard is rooted in the constitutional right to an impartial jury ... and because the impartiality of the adjudicator goes to the very integrity of the legal system” harmless-error analysis cannot apply); see Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam) (“[ujnless a venireman is ‘irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings,’ he cannot be exc…
examined
Cited "see"
Parks v. Warren
(3×)
E.D. Mich. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam); Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 351-352 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Anderson
(6×)
Ariz. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Simon
(6×)
N.J. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
In Adams v. Texas, supra , the United States Supreme Court held that "a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath." 448 U.S. at 45 , 100 S.Ct. at 2526 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 581 ; see Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 339 (1976); see also Cooper, supra, 151 N.J. at 352 , 700 A. 2d 306 (stating that a potential juror can be removed for cause based on that belief "if such views would s…
examined
Cited "see"
Greene v. State
(4×)
Ga. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 399-400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Pope v. State, 256 Ga. 195 (7d & e), 345 S.E.2d 831 (1986).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Calabrese
(3×)
unknown court · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam) (exclusion of jurors who are not irrevocably committed to vote against the death penalty); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502-03 , 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2168-69 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972) (opinion of Marshall, J.). .
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Calabrese
(3×)
unknown court · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam) (exclusion of jurors who are not irrevocably committed to vote against the death penalty); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 502-03 , 92 S.Ct. 2163, 2168-69 , 33 L.Ed.2d 83 (1972) (opinion of Marshall, J.) 5 We do not decide whether this same result would apply where a de minimis number of jurors is involved.
examined
Cited "see"
Andrews v. State
(3×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Clyde Major Thompson, AKA Clyde Johnson
(6×)
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See id., 106 S.Ct. at 623-24 (plurality opinion) (citing Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam)). 5 Conclusion We remand for a hearing, in accordance with the procedure outlined in this opinion, on the prosecution’s motive in exercising its peremptory challenges.
examined
Cited "see"
Pickens v. State
(4×)
Ark. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rector v. State, 280 Ark. 385 , 659 S.W.2d 68 (1983) (quoting from Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 (1976)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Vasquez v. Hillery
(2×)
SCOTUS · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122 (1976) (per curiam) ; Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333, 351-352 (1966).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Welcome
(3×)
La. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
Willie Jasper Darden v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida
(6×)
11th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Witt v. Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1069 , 1081 & n. 8 (11th Cir.1983).
examined
Cited "see"
Buffington v. State
(6×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
Hartfield v. State
(4×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Blair
(6×)
Mo. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); State v. Newlon, 627 S.W.2d 606, 615 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Mercer, 618 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 933 , 102 S.Ct. 432 , 70 L.Ed.2d 240 (1981).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Harrington
(6×)
Tenn. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976); Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 (1970); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 , 89 S.Ct. 1138 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969).
examined
Cited "see"
Evans v. State
(6×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
Franklin v. State
(4×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chambers v. State
(2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Davis v. State
(2×)
Ga. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122, 123 (97 SC 399, 50 LE2d 339) (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Griggs v. State
(2×)
Ga. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122 (97 SC 399) (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brock v. State
(2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See and cf. Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Lewis v. Commonwealth
Va. · 1977 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 (1976).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Chanthadara
(3×)
10th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 657-68 , 107 S.Ct. 2045 , 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987) (erroneous exclusion of one potential juror based on her views on the death penalty was reversible constitutional error); see also O’Bryan v. Estelle, 714 F.2d 365, 371 (5th Cir.1983) (“The courts have required a death sentence to be set aside even if only one potential juror has been excluded for opposing the death penalty on grounds broader than those set forth in Witherspoon.”) (citing Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976)). a.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Fuller v. Johnson
(3×)
5th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
Where the court finds that even one juror was improperly excluded, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing, because the right to an impartial adjudication is “ ‘so basic to a fair trial that [its] infraction can never be treated as harmless error.’ ” Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 668 , 107 S.Ct. 2045, 2057 , 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987) (plurality opinion); see also Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 123 , 97 S.Ct. 399, 400 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976) (per curiam) (remanding capital case for reconsideration where a single juror was erroneously removed for bias).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker v. State
(3×)
Okla. Crim. App. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976). .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Banks v. Texas
(4×)
SCOTUS · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Davis v. Georgia 429 U. S. 122 (1976) (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Martin
(3×)
La. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122 , 97 S.Ct. 399 , 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. Hopper
Ga. · 1977 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122 (97 SC 399, 50 LE2d 339) (1976).