Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) was a United States Supreme Court case where it was ruled that having an expert witness testify on behalf of a third-party lab analyst does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as long as the results were not directed to prove guilt.
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, if a person cannot afford to pay a fine, it violates the Equal Protection Clause to convert that unpaid fine into jail time to extend a person's incarceration beyond a statutory maximum length.
Case name Citation Date decided Coleman v. Alabama: 399 U.S. 1: 1970: Vale v. Louisiana: 399 U.S. 30: 1970: Chambers v. Maroney: 399 U.S. 42: 1970: Baldwin v. New York
Williams v. Illinois (1970) – The Supreme Court ruled that states may not imprison someone beyond the maximum statutory limit based on indigence and inability to pay a fine, since doing so would be to "accomplish indirectly ... that which cannot be done directly". [2]: 20 [10] Tate v.
Her work on the Confrontation Clause was cited and discussed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Williams v. Illinois (2012). [14] In 2016, she co-chaired an advisory group to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which issued a report on the reliability of forensic science used in the courtroom. [15] [16]
As stated in Brewer v.Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel "means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, 'whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. ' " [2] Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversarial proceedings have begun ...
Withrow v. Williams: 235 Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois: 236 Ex parte Grossman: 237 Scribner v. Straus: 238 First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County: 239 Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co. v. Ward: 240 Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic: 241 Anderson County Commissioners v. Beal: 242 Nguyen v. INS: 243 ...
The Vicinage Clause is a provision in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution regulating the vicinity from which a jury pool may be selected. The clause says that the accused shall be entitled to an "impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law". [1]