Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Tompkins v. Texas
Tompkins v. Tex., 104 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1989)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1989-08-11
- Topic
- general
explaining that it remains the ultimate burden of the accused to persuade the trial judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations of purposeful discrimination are true | explaining that it remains the ultimate burden of the accused to persuade the trial judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations of purposeful discrimination are true | upholding a strike simply because the juror was a mailman and noting that it was not the “office” of the reviewing court to judge the prosecutor’s credibility | holding defendant's reputation in Virginia admissible in Texas prosecution | holding defendant’s reputation in Virginia admissible in Texas prosecution | holding defendant's reputation in Virginia admissible in Texas prosecution | issue of involuntary manslaughter not raised where “appellant did not testify or offer any evidence that he caused his victim’s death by a reckless act” | also holding strike based on employment with postal service was race-neutral | psychologist-patient communication privilege governed by laws of state where communication took place | limiting first degree murder defendant’s brief to 65 pages | reasonable to seek to avoid A literacy problems @ | without opinion by an equally divided Court | without opinion by an equally divided Court
Citator
- Cited by
- 63 opinions
TOMPKINS
v.
TEXAS
No. 87-6405.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 6, 1988 Decided June 5, 1989 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXASEmmett B. Lewis argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Robert K. Huffman and James B. Altman.
Charles A. Palmer, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Jim Mattox, Attorney General, Mary F. Keller, First Assistant Attorney General, Lou McCreary, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Michael P. Hodge and Margaret Portman Griffey, Assistant Attorneys General.[*]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
NOTES
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Steven R. Shapiro, John A. Powell, Julius LeVonne Chambers, and Charles Stephen Ralston; and for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law by Robert E. Montgomery, Jr., Conrad K. Harper, Stuart J. Land, Norman Redlich, William L. Robinson, and Judith A. Winston.