Legal Opinion

O'Dell v. Netherland

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 19, 1997No. 96-6867PublishedCited by 502 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas

This case presents the question whether the rule set out in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994) — which requires that a capital defendant be permitted to inform his sentencing jury that he is parole ineligible if the prosecution argues that he presents a future danger — was “new” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), and thereby inapplicable to an already final death sentence. We conclude that it was new, and that it cannot, therefore, be used to disturb petitioner’s death sentence, which had been final for six years when Simmons was decided.

Helen Schartner…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Eddings v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Caldwell v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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

3Cited by502 opinions

  1. Montgomery v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  2. Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2020
  3. Tyler v. CainSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. Whorton v. BocktingSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999

497 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