"The contention is that where guilt and punishment are to be determined by a jury at a single trial the desire to address the jury on punishment unduly encourages waiver of the defendant's privilege to remain silent on the issue of guilt, or, to put the matter another way, that the single-verdict procedure unlawfully compels the defendant to become a witness against himself on the issue of guilt by the threat of sentencing him to death without having heard from him."
How later courts described this case
- "The contention is that where guilt and punishment are to be determined by a jury at a single trial the desire to address the jury on punishment unduly encourages waiver of the defendant's privilege to remain silent on the issue of guilt, or, to put the matter another way, that the single-verdict procedure unlawfully compels the defendant to become a witness against himself on the issue of guilt by the threat of sentencing him to death without having heard from him."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sup. Ct. Ohio. Petition for rehearing granted. Judgment affirming judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 402 U. S. 183 (1971), vacated. Judgment, 18 Ohio St. *942 2d 182 , 248 N. E. 2d 614 (1969), vacated insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death penalty imposed, and case remanded for further proceedings. See Furman v. Georgia, ante, p. 238.