
	Where results make sense

Topic: Woodson v North Carolina

	Philosophy of Law (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		The North Carolina General Assembly in 1974 followed the court's lead and enacted a new statute that was essentially unchanged from the old one except that it made the death penalty mandatory.
		North Carolina's mandatory death penalty statute for first-degree murder departs markedly from contemporary standards respecting the imposition of the punishment of death and thus cannot be applied consistently with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' [***30] requirement that the State's power to punish "be exercised within the limits of civilized standards." Id., at 100.
		n40 The judgment of the [2992] Supreme Court of North Carolina** is reversed insofar as it upheld the death sentences imposed upon the petitioners, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
	people.brandeis.edu /~teuber/lawwoodson.html (12372 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals WOODSON v. NORTH CAROLINA, 428 U.S. 280 (1976)
		Georgia, 408 U.S., the North Carolina law that previously had provided that in cases of first-degree murder the jury in its unbridled discretion could choose whether the convicted defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment was changed to make the death penalty mandatory for that crime.
		North Carolina's mandatory death penalty statute for first-degree murder departs markedly from contemporary standards respecting the imposition of the punishment of death and thus cannot be applied consistently with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' requirement that the State's power to punish "be exercised within the limits of civilized standards." Id., at 100.
		40 The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is reversed insofar as it upheld the death sentences imposed upon the petitioners, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
	www.justiceblind.com /death/woodson.html (11169 words)

	Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)
		North Carolina, 494 U.S. The case that began the development of this Eighth Amendment jurisprudence was Furman v.
		North Carolina, 494 U.S. For state lawmakers, the lesson has been that a decision of this Court is nearly worthless as a guide for the future; though we approve or seemingly even require some sentencing procedure today, we may well retroactively prohibit it tomorrow.
		North Carolina, 489 U.S., on February 21, 1989 (the first of this Term's capital cases to have certiorari granted), we have received over 350 petitions for certiorari in capital cases; eight were granted, and 84 were held for the nine cases granted for this Term; 37 were held for this case alone.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/88-7351.ZC.html (4300 words)

	Woodson v. North Carolina
		Petitioners, whose convictions of first-degree murder and whose death sentences under the new statute were upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, have challenged the statute's constitutionality.
		Held: The judgment is reversed insofar as it upheld the death sentences, and the case is remanded.
		JUSTICE STEVENS concluded that North Carolina's mandatory death sentence statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0428_0280_ZS.html (603 words)

	[No title]
		Georgia, North Carolina law provided that in cases of first-degree murder, the jury in its unbridled discretion could choose whether the convicted defendant should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment.
		North Carolina's mandatory death penalty statute for first-degree murder departs markedly from contemporary standards respecting the imposition of the punishment of death and thus cannot be applied consistently with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' requirement that the State's power to punish "be exercised within the limits of civilized standards."
		The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is reversed insofar as it upheld the death sentences imposed upon the petitioners, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
	law.gsu.edu /psingleton/fall2000/section-2.htm (12877 words)

	OSCN Found Document:GARDNER v. FLORIDA, 430 U.S. 349 (1977)
		North Carolina, 428 U.S. (1976), the Court addressed the question whether the mandatory death penalty imposed under the statute involved in that case was
		North Carolina, 428 U.S. (1976), and in Roberts v.
		Georgia, 428 U.S. I agree for the reasons stated in the plurality opinion that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a defendant facing a death sentence is not informed of the contents of a presentence investigation report made to the sentencing judge.
	www.oscn.net /applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=430441 (5892 words)

	Woodson v. North Carolina (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		The state of North Carolina enacted legislation that made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted first-degree murderers.
		Woodson challenged the law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
		In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the North Carolina law was unconstitutional.
	www.oyez.org /oyez/resource/case/452/print (302 words)

	CJLF Amicus Curiae brief in Buchanan v. Angelone--PART II (File 3 of 4)
		At the penalty phase in the present case, the jury was instructed, "Before the penalty can be fixed at death, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt" the truth of the statutory aggravating circumstance alleged by the prosecution.
		North Carolina, 428 U. The lead opinion gave three reasons for rejecting mandatory sentencing in capital cases.
		Finally, the Woodson lead opinion held that there was a constitutional imperative to consider not only the circumstances of the crime but also "the character and record of the individual offender.
	www.cjlf.org /briefs/buchann3.htm (2423 words)

	Analysis of Big Four Death Penalty Cases
		North Carolina, 428 U.S. These three cases are included primarily because as a group they determined first, whether capital punishment itself was constitutional, and second, under which conditions for first-degree murderers would or would not the death penalty be tolerated.
		North Carolina, 428 U.S. Four men were convicted of first-degree murder of a cashier as the result of their participation in an armed robbery of a convenience food store.
		Woodson's attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that mandatory death sentences upon conviction for murder are unconstitutional.
	www.justiceblind.com /death/bigfouranalysis.htm (14711 words)

	Harmelin v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___ (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		Petitioner claims that his sentence is unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual" for two reasons: first, because it is "significantly disproportionate" to the crime he committed; second, because the sentencing judge was statutorily required to [*962] impose it, without taking into account the particularized circumstances of the crime and of the criminal.
		North Carolina, supra, at [***67] 303-305; Rummel v.
		Moreover, the suggestion that a legislatively mandated punishment is necessarily "legal" is the antithesis of the principles established in Marbury v.
	www.whitehorseinc.com /fsglaw/cases/sc_Harmelin.htm (16325 words)

	DEATH PENALTY CASES: LEADING U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
		Georgia (1976), one of a series of important cases in which the justices announced that punishment by death is not per se cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, and that “guided discretion” statutes are capable of remedying the constitutional infirmities identified by the Furman Court.
		North Carolina (1976), another of the series of 1976 decisions, in which the Court declared mandatory capital-punishment legislation unconstitutional.
		North Carolina (1990), ruling, respectively, that the sentencer in a capital trial must be allowed to consider all relevant mitigating evidence, and that jurors may not be required to agree unanimously that a mitigating factor has been established before crediting mitigation evidence.
	www.bsos.umd.edu /gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/latzer98.html (1018 words)

	Introduction to the 8th Amendment
		North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976), the Court explained why the Constitution requires an individualized sentencing determination in a capital case even though there is no parallel requirement in non-capital cases.
		South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), the Court held that evidence of the defendant's good behavior during his pretrial incarceration was "'mitigating' in the sense that [it] might serve 'as a basis for a sentence less than death.'" 476 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lockett v.
		North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) ("each juror [must] be permitted to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence").
	www.capdefnet.org /hat/contents/intro_to_8th/3_intro_to_8th.htm (6809 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
		During the trial Waxton asked to be allowed to plead guilty to the same lesser offenses to which Tucker had pleaded guilty, 1 but the solicitor refused to accept the pleas.
		The petitioners were found guilty on all charges, 3 and, as was required by statute, sentenced to death.
		The Court in Andres noted that the decision of Congress at the end of the 19th century to replace mandatory death sentences with discretionary jury sentencing for federal capital crimes was prompted by "[d]issatisfaction over the harshness and antiquity of the federal criminal laws." Id., at 747-748, n.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=428&invol=280 (11344 words)

	State v. Garcia, (504A01) 06/25/2004
		In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
		Defendantcontends that the threat is not relevant, that its admission was unfairly prejudicial, and that the threat represents impermissible character evidence as defined by North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b).
		Defendant also argues that the North Carolina death penalty statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and is unconstitutionally applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner and that the death penalty is inherently cruel and unusual.
	www.aoc.state.nc.us /www/public/sc/opinions/2004/504-01-1.htm (16818 words)

	[No title]
		North Carolina}{\f0\fs24\expnd0\expndtw-2, 428 U.S. This mandate translates into a responsibility of this Court to ensure that Defendant receives a fair trial.
		V, VI, VIII, IX and XIV; Ohio Const.
		Ohio}{\f0\fs24, 438 U.S. 586 (1978); }{\f0\fs24\ul Woodson v.
	www.hamilton-co.org /pub_def/Motions/MM_64.dot (524 words)

	TENNESSEE
		North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990).
		Any of the “diverse frailties of humankind” constitute mitigating factors which must be considered as a matter of law when deciding punishment.
		North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976).
	www.mtsu.edu /~socwork/frost/mitigation/tennessee.htm (1039 words)

	AGO_1976_No_015 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		Texas, supra, the former was held to be unconstitutional by a five to four majority in Woodson v.
		North Carolina, U.S. 3761 (July 6, 1976); and Williams and Justus v.
		II, § 1 (Amendment 7); however, because the initiative was framed as an amendment to the new state criminal code it did not actually become operative until July 1, 1976 ‑ as explained in AGO 1976 No. 4 [[to Earl F. Tilly, State Representative on January 22, 1976]].
	www.atg.wa.gov /opinions/1976/opinion_1976_015.html (4781 words)

	Capital punishment in the United States Article, CapitalpunishmenttheUnitedStates Information (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		Capital punishment was suspended in the USA between 1967 and 1976 as a result of several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, primarily the case of Furman v.
		Georgia, 408 U.S. In this case, the court found the application of the death penalty to be unconstitutional, on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution.
		In Furman, the United States SupremeCourt found Georgia's "unitary trial" procedure, in which the jury was asked to return a verdict of guilt or innocence and,simultaneously, determine whether the defendant would be punished by death or life imprisonment—a concept further clarifiedin the Woodson v.
	www.anoca.org /death/penalty/capital_punishment_in_the_united_states.html (1484 words)

	Duke Law News & Events
		Tally distinguished herself early in her career as the public defender in Fayetteville, North Carolina, where, prior to her service in this position, few qualified attorneys were interested in working.
		In 2000, the state's legislature adopted the recommendations of the study commission and transferred authority and control of all indigent defense in North Carolina from the administrative office of the courts to an independent Indigent Defense Commission Board comprised primarily of attorneys engaged in indigent defense.
		This represents a dramatic turn of fortune for North Carolina, where currently more than 200 persons are sentenced to die, and which has the third highest per capita death-sentencing rate in the country.
	www.law.duke.edu /news/archive/november2001/marytally.html (310 words)

	History: Reinstating the Death Penalty
		To address the unconstitutionality of unguided jury discretion, some states removed all of that discretion by mandating capital punishment for those convicted of capital crimes.
		However, this practice was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Woodson v.
		North Carolina (428 U.S. Other states sought to limit that discretion by providing sentencing guidelines for the judge and jury when deciding whether to impose death.
	deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu /c/about/history/history-6.htm (509 words)

	Annotated Constitution pg 1482 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		Thus, a great measure of discretion was again accorded the sentencing authority, be it judge or jury, subject only to the consideration that the legislature must prescribe aggravating factors.
		North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 303 (1976) (opinion of Justice Stewart, joined by Justices Powell and Stevens).
		In short, the practice which in Furman had been described as the discretion to sentence to death and pronounced constitutionally prohibited, was in Woodson and Lockett renamed the discretion not to sentence to death and pronounced constitutionally required.'' Walton v.
	www.eco.freedom.org /ac92/ac92pg1482.shtml (422 words)

	The History of Jim Crow
		Woodson guided the Association with the belief that serious scholarly research, the preservation of manuscripts, the publication of books and essays, and the teaching of African American history would give credence to the contributions of fls, thus gaining some measure of respect from white Americans.
		From 1920 to 1940, white foundations withheld support from the Association, forcing Woodson to turn to the fl community for its funding.
		To be free and white was the promise of American equality, and all whites thereafter shared a common bond in their whiteness that superseded any class differences.
	www.jimcrowhistory.org /scripts/jimcrow/glossary.cgi (3714 words)

	Annotated Constitution pg 1415 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		The Court thought the problem went only to the issue of the sentence imposed and saw no evidence that a jury from which death scrupled persons had been excluded was more prone to convict than were juries on which such person sat.
		North Carolina, 391 U.S. The Witherspoon case was given added significance when in Woodson v.
		Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976), the Court held mandatory death sentences unconstitutional and ruled that the jury as a representative of community mores must make the determination as guided by legislative standards.
	www.eco.freedom.org /ac92/ac92pg1415.shtml (378 words)

	NLADA: Communication Resources - Press Releases (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		Tally is nationally recognized as a leader in the defense bar and as a keen strategist in the trial of capital cases.
		Former public defenders from her office now serve across North Carolina as a driving force in the reform of the criminal justice system.
		She is on the board of the Indigent Defense Commission and chairs the committee addressing policy in capital cases.
	www.nlada.org /News/News_Press_Releases/2001865050.48 (566 words)

	The Death Penalty Laws of Alabama
		In these cases the Court found the death penalty statutes of Georgia, Florida, and Texas constitutional on their face, but struck down the capital punishment schemes of North Carolina and Louisiana.
		The conclusion to be drawn from the quintet of Gregg, Profitt, Jurek, Woodson, and Roberts might be summarily stated as follows: The sentencing authority in a capital case cannot possess the unguided, unbridled discretion previously found impermissible in Furman.
		Although the sentencing authority must be given some discretion, the discretion must be directed and limited to minimize the potential for arbitrary and capricious action.
	www.law.ua.edu /colquitt/crimmain/crimmisc/colquitt.htm (992 words)

	State v. Prevatte, 356 NC 178 (492A99) 10/04/2002
		And I think there's in fact a recent North Carolina Supreme Court case that basically says they're not to second-guess lawyers on post conviction relief where the defendant says, my lawyer didn't do so and so, because the defendant, first of all, didn't go to law school.
		Second of all, the lawyer in his expertise in being in the courtroom under fire, 12 people sitting in the box in a capital case is in a better position to judge what tactics to take than the Supreme Court sitting in Raleigh 18 months later.
		The law in North Carolina is well established that a prosecutor may not express his opinion as to the credibility of a witness.
	www.aoc.state.nc.us /www/public/sc/opinions/2002/492-99-1.htm (16602 words)

	ipedia.com: Capital punishment in the United States Article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-18)
		In Furman, the United States Supreme Court found Georgia's "unitary trial" procedure, in which the jury was asked to return a verdict of guilt or innocence and, simultaneously, determine whether the defendant would be punished by death or life imprisonment—a concept further clarified in the Woodson v.
		Other capital crimes include: Aggravated kidnapping in Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky and South Carolina; train wrecking and perjury which leads to someone being executed in California; aircraft hijacking in Georgia and Mississippi; aggravated rape of victim under age 12 in Louisiana; capital sexual battery in Florida; and capital narcotics conspiracy in Florida and New Jersey.
		Federal death penalty crimes are various degrees and types of murder as well as treason, espionage, large scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill any officer, juror, or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise.
	www.ipedia.com /capital_punishment_in_the_united_states.html (1619 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)