17 Cited authorities

Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,560 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,610 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
Booth v. Maryland
482 U.S. 496 (1987) Cited 1,112 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Constitution prohibits a jury from considering victim impact statements during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial
Osborne v. Ohio
495 U.S. 103 (1990) Cited 729 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, "under the circumstances, nothing would be gained" by requiring adherence to a procedural rule for preserving an argument after the trial court "in no uncertain terms" had already rejected the argument once before
Byrd v. Collins
209 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,218 times
Holding that a prosecutor's comment that jurors "should impose the death penalty . . . in order to fulfill their societal duty" was not improper because the prosecutor "d[id] not ask the jury to send a message to other potential murderers or robbers"
Bland v. Sirmons
459 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 564 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state prisoner cannot exhaust his federal habeas claim by presenting a "somewhat similar" claim in state court
Fahy v. Horn
516 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 361 times
Holding that even though the state court did engage in a colloquy with the petitioner, that colloquy was insufficient to establish that the waiver was knowing and voluntary because the state court had refused to permit petitioner's counsel to ask him questions that would probe the waiver's validity
U.S. v. Lighty, Page 321
616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2010) Cited 331 times
Holding harmless improperly admitted prejudicial evidence, in part, because district court gave “explicit” curative instruction that the jury could not infer from the evidence the defendant's propensity to commit crimes
Wilson v. Sirmons
536 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2008) Cited 239 times
Holding that the admission of a gruesome photograph of a murder victim's body did not render a capital murder trial fundamentally unfair under AEDPA, where the photographs were probative of the attacker's intent to kill and permitted the medical examiner to analyze the cause of the victim's injuries
Floyd v. Meachum
907 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 338 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hile each instance of prosecutorial misconduct, standing alone, might not justify reversal, the effect of all of them requires it."

USA v. Roof

17 Cited authorities

Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding that the Constitution prohibits a jury from considering victim impact statements during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial

Holding that, "under the circumstances, nothing would be gained" by requiring adherence to a procedural rule for preserving an argument after the trial court "in no uncertain terms" had already rejected the argument once before

Holding that a prosecutor's comment that jurors "should impose the death penalty . . . in order to fulfill their societal duty" was not improper because the prosecutor "d[id] not ask the jury to send a message to other potential murderers or robbers"

Holding that a state prisoner cannot exhaust his federal habeas claim by presenting a "somewhat similar" claim in state court

Holding that even though the state court did engage in a colloquy with the petitioner, that colloquy was insufficient to establish that the waiver was knowing and voluntary because the state court had refused to permit petitioner's counsel to ask him questions that would probe the waiver's validity

Holding harmless improperly admitted prejudicial evidence, in part, because district court gave “explicit” curative instruction that the jury could not infer from the evidence the defendant's propensity to commit crimes

Holding that "[w]hile each instance of prosecutorial misconduct, standing alone, might not justify reversal, the effect of all of them requires it."