Jurek v. Texas
E266471
Jurek v. Texas is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of Texas’s capital sentencing scheme and helped define the modern framework for death penalty procedures under the Eighth Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Jurek v. Texas canonical | 6 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2435134 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Jurek v. Texas Context triple: [Branch v. Texas, relatedToCase, Jurek v. Texas]
-
A.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
B.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
C.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
D.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
-
E.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Jurek v. Texas Target entity description: Jurek v. Texas is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of Texas’s capital sentencing scheme and helped define the modern framework for death penalty procedures under the Eighth Amendment.
-
A.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
B.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that expanded the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations and helped lay the groundwork for the later Miranda warnings.
-
C.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
D.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
-
E.
Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on Texas State Capitol grounds against an Establishment Clause challenge.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (53)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Eighth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ capital punishment case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| argued | 1976-03-30 ⓘ |
| citation | 428 U.S. 262 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
linked to:
Warren E. Burger
Justice John Paul Stevens ⓘ
linked to:
John Paul Stevens
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Eighth Amendment
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedWith |
Gregg v. Georgia
ⓘ
Proffitt v. Florida ⓘ Roberts v. Louisiana (1976) ⓘ
linked to:
Roberts v. Louisiana
Woodson v. North Carolina ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1976-07-02 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Justice Byron White
ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
linked to:
Thurgood Marshall
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
William J. Brennan Jr.
Justice William O. Douglas ⓘ
linked to:
William O. Douglas
|
| docketNumber | 75-5394 ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Jurek v. Texas ⓘ |
| holding |
Guided discretion in capital sentencing can satisfy Eighth Amendment requirements.
ⓘ
The Texas capital sentencing procedure is not per se unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. ⓘ |
| joinedByInPlurality |
Justice Byron White
ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice Harry Blackmun ⓘ
linked to:
Harry A. Blackmun
|
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
capital punishment ⓘ cruel and unusual punishment ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Byron White
ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice Harry Blackmun ⓘ
linked to:
Harry A. Blackmun
Justice Potter Stewart ⓘ
linked to:
Potter Stewart
|
| originatingCourt | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 262 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Jerry Lane Jurek ⓘ |
| pluralityOpinionBy |
Justice Potter Stewart
ⓘ
linked to:
Potter Stewart
|
| reargued | 1976-04-28 ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Furman v. Georgia
ⓘ
Gregg v. Georgia ⓘ Proffitt v. Florida ⓘ Roberts v. Louisiana (1976) ⓘ
linked to:
Roberts v. Louisiana
Woodson v. North Carolina ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Texas
ⓘ
linked to:
Texas
|
| result | death sentence affirmed ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | Texas ⓘ |
| topic |
bifurcated capital trial
ⓘ
future dangerousness ⓘ guided discretion in death penalty sentencing ⓘ |
| volumeInUnitedStatesReports | 428 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Jurek v. Texas Description of subject: Jurek v. Texas is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of Texas’s capital sentencing scheme and helped define the modern framework for death penalty procedures under the Eighth Amendment.
Referenced by (6)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.