Cole v. Texas 90 7411
| Decision Date | 18 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A-704,A-704 |
| Citation | 111 S.Ct. 1407,499 U.S. 1301,113 L.Ed.2d 206 |
| Parties | Ted Calvin COLE v. TEXAS. (90-7411). On application for stay of execution of sentence of death |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On application for stay of execution of sentence of death.
March 18, 1991. Justice SCALIA, Circuit Justice.
I have before me an application for a stay of execution pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The petitioner seeks direct review of the judgment of the Texas courts affirming his death sentence.
I will in this case, and in every capital case on direct review, grant a stay of execution pending disposition by this Court of the petition for certiorari. While I will not extend the time for filing a petition beyond an established execution date, see Madden v. Texas, 498 U.S. 1301, 111 S.Ct. 902, 112 L.Ed.2d 1026 (1991) (SCALIA, J., in chambers), neither will I permit the State's execution date to interfere with the orderly processing of a petition on direct review by this Court.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stays of Execution in Capital Cases, In re
...that it can be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, this Court will, as it must under Cole v. Texas, 499 U.S. 1301, 111 S.Ct. 1407, 113 L.Ed.2d 206 (1991) (J. Scalia, Circuit Justice), and McDonald v. Missouri, 464 U.S. 1306, 104 S.Ct. 567, 78 L.Ed.2d 538 (1984) (J. Blackmun, Circui......
-
Rodriguez v. Texas
...capital case on direct review, grant a stay of execution pending disposition by this Court of the petition for certiorari." Cole v. Texas, 499 U. S. 1301 (1991). I have also made clear, however, that the purpose of such a stay is to prevent the execution date from "interfer[ing] with the or......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...from arguing such “victim impact evidence” at a capital hearing. See Payne v. Tennessee , 111 S.Ct. 1031 (1991) (order amended by 111 S.Ct. 1407 (1991), judgment aff’d by 111 S.Ct. 2597 (1991), reh’g denied by 112 S.Ct. 28 (1991). While the Eighth Amendment no longer precludes a per se ban ......
-
Other evidence rules
...from arguing such “victim impact evidence” at a capital hearing. See Payne v. Tennessee , 111 S.Ct. 1031 (1991) (order amended by 111 S.Ct. 1407 (1991), judgment aৼ’d by 111 S.Ct. 2597 (1991), reh’g denied by 112 S.Ct. 28 (1991). While the Eighth Amendment no longer precludes a per se ban o......
-
THE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S EMERGENCY STAYS.
...is-on-track-to-be-the-lightest-in-70-years/ [https://perma.cc/NU57-TFQN]. (49.) See, e.g., Cole v. Texas, 499 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1991) (Scalia, J., opinion in chambers) (explaining that, as Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit, he would grant "in every capital case on direct review ... a sta......
-
Other evidence rules
...from arguing such “victim impact evidence” at a capital hearing. See Payne v. Tennessee , 111 S.Ct. 1031 (1991) (order amended by 111 S.Ct. 1407 (1991), judgment aৼ’d by 111 S.Ct. 2597 (1991), reh’g denied by 112 S.Ct. 28 (1991). While the Eighth Amendment no longer precludes a per se ban o......