Matter of Glantz v. Board of Educ. of the Rye City Sch. Dist.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a defendant’s constitutional rights are not violated by placing on him the burden of proving mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency”
• holding that “there is no serious argument that [the] ‘especially heinous, cruel or depraved’ aggravating factor is not facially vague.”
• concluding that Arizona court’s construction of the (F)(6) aggravator is appropriate under the Eighth Amendment
• holding that the Arizona capital sentencing scheme, which allowed the court and not the jury to make factual findings underlying a capital sentencing decision, did not offend the Sixth Amendment
• holding that the Bruton rule is inapplicable in bench trials because judges, unlike juries, are presumed to disregard improper testimony
• holding that a defendant’s due process rights “are not violated by placing on him the burden of proving mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).