United States v. Wesley Ira Purkey

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plain language of the federal allocution rule does not grant the right to allocution before a jury
• explaining that the FDPA’s low barriers to admission of evidence in a capital sentencing hearing “do[ ] not mean that the defense has carte blanche to introduce any and all evidence that it wishes”
• stating that surrebuttal is appropriate “when new matters are raised in the rebuttal testimony”
• stating that surrebuttal is appropriate “when new matters are raised in the rebuttal testimony”
• explaining that the FDPA's low barriers to admission of evidence in a capital sentencing hearing \do[] not mean that the defense has carte blanche to introduce any and all evidence that it wishes\
• explaining that the federal death-penalty statute “avoids arbitrary death sentences by requiring juries to weigh [the] aggravating and mitigating factors rather than [just] tally the factors on each side and declare a winner based on sheer numbers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).