Connection lost
Server error
McGAUTHA v. CALIFORNIA Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court upheld capital sentencing schemes that gave juries complete, unguided discretion to impose the death penalty. It also found that a single, unitary trial for determining both guilt and punishment in a capital case does not violate the Constitution.
Legal Significance: This case established that the Due Process Clause does not require states to provide juries with specific standards for imposing the death penalty, nor does it mandate bifurcated trials in capital cases, affirming the constitutionality of then-prevalent sentencing procedures.
McGAUTHA v. CALIFORNIA Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
This case consolidated two appeals from petitioners sentenced to death. Petitioner McGautha was convicted of first-degree murder in California. In a bifurcated trial, the jury first determined guilt and then, in a separate penalty phase without governing standards, chose the death penalty over life imprisonment. Petitioner Crampton was convicted of murdering his wife in Ohio. In a unitary trial, a single jury determined both his guilt and punishment in one verdict, also without any standards to guide its sentencing discretion. Crampton argued that the unitary trial unconstitutionally forced him to choose between his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent on the issue of guilt and his due process right to be heard on the issue of punishment. Both petitioners argued that leaving the life-or-death decision to the jury’s absolute and unguided discretion violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was fundamentally arbitrary and lawless.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Do state capital sentencing procedures that grant a jury complete discretion to impose the death penalty without any governing standards, or that determine guilt and punishment in a single unitary trial, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. The Court affirmed the convictions, holding that neither the absence of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor si
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Do state capital sentencing procedures that grant a jury complete discretion to impose the death penalty without any governing standards, or that determine guilt and punishment in a single unitary trial, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This decision affirmed the constitutionality of the prevailing capital sentencing systems in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercit
Legal Rule
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in rep
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis on the standards issue was deeply historical. Justice Harlan Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Standardless Discretion: The Due Process Clause does not require states to