Legal Opinion

Kelly v. South Carolina

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 9, 2002No. 00-9280PublishedCited by 178 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Souter

Last Term, we reiterated the holding of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), that when “a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant ‘to inform the jury of [his] parole ineligibility, either by a jury instruction or in arguments by counsel.’ ” Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U. S. 36, 39 (2001) (quoting Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U. S. 156, 165 (2000) (plurality opinion)). In this ease, the Supreme Court of South Carolina…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Simmons v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Penry v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Ramdass v. AngeloneSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Shafer v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. State v. StarnesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by178 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Commonwealth v. Mason, L., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Commonwealth v. ChmielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Commonwealth v. SpotzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Commonwealth v. LeskoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

173 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API