Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 7/2/1976

Jurek v. Texas

Citations

  • 428 U.S. 262
  • 96 S. Ct. 2950
  • 49 L. Ed. 2d 929
  • 1976 U.S. LEXIS 84

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that it is “essential ... that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine”
  • noting that it was “essential” that the jury “have before it all possible relevant information about the individual whose fate it must determine”
  • suggesting that the future dangerousness special issue allowed the jury to consider prior criminal conduct, age, duress, and whether the defendant was under extreme mental pressure
  • holding that the Texas sentencing scheme “clearly assures that all possible relevant information about the defendant will be adduced;” facts presented at trial related that defendant was “22 years of age, had been drinking beer all afternoon” on the day of the offense
  • noting that the jury should “have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine.”
  • noting that the court held in Woodson that an individualized sentencing determination is required under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blackmun, Burger, Rehnquist, Stewart, White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,220 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Jurek v. Texas

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.