Gilmore v. Utah
United States Supreme Court
429 U.S. 1012 (1976)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Gary Mark Gilmore was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Utah state court. His mother, Bessie Gilmore, purportedly acting as his “next friend,” filed an application for a stay in the United States Supreme Court four days before the scheduled execution. The Supreme Court granted a temporary stay awaiting Utah’s response and transcripts of the hearings. Meanwhile, Gilmore’s attorneys filed a response challenging his mother’s standing to seek relief on his behalf and stating that Gilmore opposed any stay. Review of the record revealed that his attorneys had informed Gilmore that he had a right to and substantial grounds for an appeal, and that the constitutionality of the Utah death penalty statute was questionable and could be challenged in either state or federal court. The trial court itself reiterated that the statute’s constitutionality had not been resolved, and that counsel for both the state and Gilmore would expedite an appeal to avoid delay. Gilmore repeatedly stated that he had received a fair trial, was well-treated by the Utah authorities, and did not profess innocence. Instead, his only complaint against Utah’s judicial process was the delay in carrying out his death sentence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Concurrence (Burger, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
