October Term 2004 · Docket 03-1039
Did the prosecutor mislead the jury about legal limits on evidence?
The dispute centers on whether a prosecutor’s statements about the law confused the jury during a death penalty trial.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Cortina argued the Ninth Circuit violated federal law by reversing the state court.
Mr. Gits argued the state court correctly identified exclusive jury considerations.
Justice Souter questioned the basis for claiming no reasonable likelihood of error.
Justice Kennedy questioned whether the trial court failed to correct the prosecutor.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case involves a 1982 death sentence. the side that brought the case argues the trial court failed to correct the prosecutor. the opposing side argues the jury understood the legal limits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 10, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the state court’s death sentence restored.
the opposing side wants the federal court’s reversal to stand.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the Ninth Circuit misapplied federal review standards.
the opposing side argues the state court correctly applied exclusive legal factors.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked why a reasonable likelihood of jury mistake does not exist.
Justice Kennedy asked if the trial court erred by not giving a curative instruction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Why it matters
This case defines how federal courts review state death penalty trials. It clarifies when prosecutor statements about the law require judicial correction. The outcome affects the finality of state criminal judgments.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 1-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 1-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-54 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-5
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.