Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of ...
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.
Viljoen JA conceded that the sentence was a heavy one, but found that the magistrate had furnished good reasons for imposing it. As, furthermore, he had not erred in any respect, and as the sentence was not so severe as to lead to the conclusion that no reasonable court would have imposed it, the appeal was duly dismissed.
Sworn testimony is evidence given by a witness who has made a commitment to tell the truth.If the witness is later found to have lied whilst bound by the commitment, they can often be charged with the crime of perjury.
Clarke was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 27 years while Thorpe's sentencing was delayed until September at the Old Bailey, where she was duly sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years. [7] [2] Mr Justice Sweeney said that Thorpe had in part carried out the attacks as she had been keen to "impress ...
The sentence can be read as "Reginam occidere nolite, timere bonum est, si omnes consentiunt, ego non. Contradico. " ("don't kill the Queen, it is good to be afraid, even if all agree I do not. I object."), or the opposite meaning " Reginam occidere nolite timere, bonum est; si omnes consentiunt ego non contradico.
S v Shilubane, [1] an important case in South African criminal law, was heard and decided in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Shongwe J and Bosielo J on June 20, 2005. The case is significant primarily for its treatment of questions of punishment, advocating the consideration of restorative justice as an alternative to direct imprisonment, urging that presiding officers be innovative and ...
[16] [4] [1] [12] Chase accepted the guilty plea, but insisted on trying the case anyway so that the "degree of his guilt might be duly ascertained." [17] [4] Several Dedham residents, including Chapin, Joseph Kingsbury, Jeremiah Baker, and Luther Ellis, testified against Brown, who was not represented by a lawyer. [18]