Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona [1] to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty.
The probation officer must then be prepared to discuss the case with the sentencing judge in chambers or in court, to answer questions about the report that arise during the sentencing hearing, and, ultimately, to testify under oath in open court as to the basis for the factual findings and guideline applications recommended in the report.
Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) – Florida law giving judges the power to decide facts related to sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring, which requires a jury to determine if there are aggravating factors making the crime punishable by death.
The cheerleader, 13, was murdered by Aiden Fucci on Mother’s Day 2021. She was stabbed 114 times. In a heartbreaking two days of sentencing, new details emerged in the case. Graeme Massie writes
The Florida Bar asked Circuit Judge Lisa Herndon to find that Jerry and Brooke Girley violated their oaths and recommend […] The post Lawyers may face discipline for criticizing a judge’s ...
A Tampa attorney who was sentenced to eight years of sex offender probation and no prison time after pleading guilty to 34 counts of child pornography charges still will not “acknowledge the ...
Another purpose of the statement is to inform a court of the harm suffered by the victim if the court is required to, or has the option of, having regard to the harm suffered by the victim in deciding the sentence. In cases of crimes resulting in death, the right to speak is extended to family members.
The Guidelines are the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. [3] The Guidelines' primary goal was to alleviate sentencing disparities that research had indicated were prevalent in the existing sentencing system, and the guidelines reform was specifically intended to provide for determinate sentencing.