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 CourtListenerCited by
1,220 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court· 1987-05-26· cited 5,104×
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 5,026×
- Barefoot v. EstelleSupreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 4,617×
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court· 2000-01-19· cited 3,510×
- State v. BlandTennessee Supreme Court· 1997-12-01· cited 3,458×
- Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court· 1989-06-26· cited 2,957×
- Washington v. GlucksbergSupreme Court· 1997-06-26· cited 2,664×
- Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. ArkansasSupreme Court· 1990-04-24· cited 2,590×
- Zant v. StephensSupreme Court· 1983-06-22· cited 2,410×
- Enmund v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1982-07-02· cited 2,349×
- Pulley v. HarrisSupreme Court· 1984-01-23· cited 2,080×
- Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court· 1981-05-18· cited 2,053×
- Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions DivisionSupreme Court· 2004-06-24· cited 1,965×
- Gardner v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1977-03-22· cited 1,935×
- Sawyer v. WhitleySupreme Court· 1992-06-22· cited 1,925×
- McFarland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1996-02-21· cited 1,746×
- Adams v. TexasSupreme Court· 1980-06-25· cited 1,718×
- Patrick v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1995-09-20· cited 1,680×
- Godfrey v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1980-05-19· cited 1,672×
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.