Cartwright v. Oklahoma
William Thomas Cartwright v. Oklahoma
Opinion of the Court
Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall
joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the Court’s decision except insofar as the judgment, which is without prejudice to further sentencing proceedings, does not expressly preclude the reimposition of the death penalty. Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227 (1976) (Brennan, J., dissenting), I would direct that the resentencing proceed *1016 ings be circumscribed such that the State may not reimpose the death sentence.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
497 U.S. 1015 110 S.Ct. 3261 111 L.Ed.2d 771
William Thomas CARTWRIGHT, petitioner v. OKLAHOMA.
No. 89-5934.
Case below, 778 P.2d 479 .
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
1
June 25, 1990. Denied.
2
Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1990.
3
See 497 U.S. 1051 , 111 S.Ct. 17 .
4
Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
5
I join the Court's decision except insofar as the judgment, which is without prejudice to further sentencing proceedings, does not expressly preclude the reimposition of the death penalty. Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 227 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (BRENNEN, J., dissenting), I would direct that the resentencing proceedings be circumscribed such that the State may not reimpose the death sentence.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.