enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States v. Bagley - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bagley

    Maryland, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense. The only requirements being that the evidence is favorable to the defendant and material. [1]: 4 Thirteen years later, the Supreme Court defined what it meant for evidence to be material in a case called United States v

  3. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

    New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of a public official to sue for defamation.

  4. Actual malice - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

    This term was adopted by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, [2] in which the Warren Court held that: . The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice ...

  5. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melendez-Diaz_v._Massachusetts

    Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]

  6. Holmes v. South Carolina - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_v._South_Carolina

    The trial court excluded Holmes' third-party guilt evidence based on State v. Gregory, 16 S.E.2d 532 (S.C. 1941), in which the South Carolina Supreme Court had held that such evidence is only admissible if it "raises a reasonable inference or presumption as to [the defendant's] own innocence." Holmes was subsequently convicted again.

  7. Napue v. Illinois - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napue_v._Illinois

    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 ...

  8. Clark v. Arizona - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_v._Arizona

    Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.. The Court affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia for killing a police officer.

  9. Smith v. Maryland - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

    Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case holding that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required.