Supreme Court of the United States, 1986

Bracy v. Arizona

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 27, 1986 · Brennan, Marshall

474 U.S. 1110; 106 S. Ct. 898; 88 L. Ed. 2d 932; 54 U.S.L.W. 3498; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 1271 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Fulminante (Ariz. 1989)
State v. Beaty (Ariz. 1988)
John Harvey Adamson v. James G. Ricketts, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections (9th Cir. 1988)
State v. Tucker (Ariz. 1988)
Smith v. State (Md. 2001)
State v. Jackson (Ariz. 1996)
State v. Duzan (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993)
State v. Romanosky (Ariz. 1993)
State v. Rossi (Ariz. 1992)
State v. Greenway (Ariz. 1991)
State v. Stanley (Ariz. 1991)
State v. Vickers (Ariz. 1989)
State v. Walton (Ariz. 1989)
People v. Drake (Colo. 1988)
People v. Erickson (Ill. 1987)
People v. Christiansen (Ill. 1987)
People v. Guest (Ill. 1986)
State v. Bassett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007)
Schad v. Schriro (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2006)
United States Ex Rel. Collins v. Welborn (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1999)
State v. Lemon (Conn. 1999)
State v. Lee (Ariz. 1996)
State v. Soto-Fong (Ariz. 1996)
State v. Gonzales (Ariz. 1995)
State v. Walden (Ariz. 1995)

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 of the Court

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.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.