Johnson v. United States
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Lawrence T. Day. United States of America v. Eric J. Sheffey (D.C. Cir. 1979)
- United States v. David A. Wiley (D.C. Cir. 1974)
- Nuclear Information & Resource Service v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (9th Cir. 2006)
- Zimmerman v. State (Del. 1993)
- Mathews v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1988)
- State v. Coleman (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)
- Boyd v. United States (D.C. 1984)
- United States v. Jeffrey Guy Lonsdale (5th Cir. 1978)
- Gardner v. American Century Mortgage Investors (5th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. Narciso (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1977)
- United States v. Cyrus T. Anderson (D.C. Cir. 1975)
- Anderson v. United States (D.C. 1974)
- United States v. Thomas E. Fench, United States of America v. William H. Blackwell (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Gordon Alexander, United States of America v. Benjamin Murdock (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- United States v. David W. McCrae (D.C. Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Michael W. Rosebar (D.C. Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Wilkin D. Lumpkin (D.C. Cir. 1971)
- State v. Lira (Haw. 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
JOHNSON
v.
UNITED STATES.
Supreme Court of United States.
William J. Lippman, by appointment of the Court, 400 U. S. 940, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Samuel Huntington argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Roger A. Pauley.
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.
In the petitioner's trial on a charge of rape, the District Judge instructed the jury that it could return a verdict of guilty with the death penalty. Yet that verdict was constitutionally impermissible in light of this Court's decision in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570. See Bailey v. United States, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 82, 86 and n. 3, 405 F. 2d 1352, 1356 and n. 3. I think the extreme prejudice arising from this erroneous instruction requires reversal of the judgment of conviction and a remand of this case for a new trial. Cf. Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 331-332.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.