History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bracy v. Arizona
106 S. Ct. 898
SCOTUS
1986
Check Treatment

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

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, *1111227 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.






Lead Opinion

Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.






Dissenting Opinion

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Petitioner William Bracy was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death. He claims that the state trial court improperly barred him from pursuing, in his cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the only line of questioning that could have revealed that witness’ motivation to shade his testimony in favor of the prosecution. He argues that he was thus denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront the State’s witnesses against him. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308 (1974). I believe that petitioner’s claim may be substantial, requiring that his conviction be vacated.

In the pending case of Delaware v. Van Arsdall (No. 84-1279), cert. granted, 473 U. S. 923 (1985), this Court is to decide whether an absolute denial of cross-examination of a prosecution witness concerning potential bias can ever be harmless error. The Court denies certiorari in this case without even waiting to consider what light the Van Arsdall case will shed on the issues here. Because I consider such haste inappropriate, especially when a man’s life is hanging in the balance, I dissent from the denial of certiorari.

Case Details

Case Name: Bracy v. Arizona
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Published: Jan 27, 1986
Citation: 106 S. Ct. 898
Docket Number: No. 85-5776
Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.