Supreme Court of the United States
Home About the Supreme Court Docket Calendar and Schedules Bar Admissions Court Rules
Case Handling Guides Opinions Orders Visiting the Court Public Information Related Websites

 

528 U. S., Part 2


Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U. S. ___ (2000)

R019; No. 99-5746; 01/19/00. The Constitution is not violated when a trial judge directs a capital jurys attention to a specific paragraph of a constitutionally sufficient instruction in response to a question regarding the proper consideration of mitigating evidence; federal habeas relief is barred by 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254(d).

Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U. S. ___ (2000)

R020; No. 99-51; 1/19/00. The Guam Organic Act does not require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Territory, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election.

Smith v. Robbins, 528 U. S. ___ (2000)

R021; No. 98-1037; 1/19/00. Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738, sets out one procedure for determining whether an indigents direct appeal is frivolous, but States are free to adopt other procedures so long as they adequately safeguard a defendants Fourteenth Amendment right to appellate counsel; Californias procedure is adequate.

United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U. S. ___ (2000)

R022; No. 98-1255; 1/19/00. A defendants exercise of peremptory challenges pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24 is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use such a challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause.

Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U. S. ___ (2000)

R023; No. 98-405; 1/24/00. In light of the language of sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Courts holding in Beer v. United States, 425 U. S. 130, sec. 5 does not prohibit preclearance of a redistricting plan enacted with a discriminatory but nonretrogressive purpose.

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. ___ (2000)

R024; No. 98-963; 1/24/00. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (per curiam) is authority for state limits on contributions to state political candidates, and those limits need not be pegged to the federal limits approved in Buckley.


HOME | ABOUT THE COURT | DOCKET | CALENDAR/SCHEDULES | BAR ADMISSIONS | COURT RULES
CASE HANDLING GUIDES | OPINIONS | ORDERS | VISITING THE COURT | PUBLIC INFORMATION | RELATED WEBSITES

 

Last Updated: April 17, 2000
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s528pt2.html