Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), is a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence requiring prosecution to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to elements of the offense, and does not extend to the defense of justification, whereby states could legislate a burden on the defense to prove justification.
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) A state legislature can repeal a corruptly made law, but the Contract Clause of the Constitution prohibits the voiding of valid contracts made under such a law. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. Martin v.
Lorraine Martin v. Hearst Corporation (2d Cir. 2015) was a defamation case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit protecting online news sources from having to remove or modify a story chronicling a person's arrest if that arrest is later erased from the record by the government using a criminal erasure statute.
Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication (sexual acts between unmarried people) was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v.
The state case has faced delays, with attorneys agreeing to not go to trial before the federal case wraps up. The trial in the federal case is slated to begin Sept. 9. Brooke Muckerman of The ...
Justification and excuse are different defenses in a United States criminal case. [1]: 513 Both defenses admit that the defendant committed an act proscribed by law. [1]: 513 The proscribed act has justification if the act had positive effects that outweigh its negative effects, or is not wrong or blameworthy.
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law prohibiting the distribution of handbills from door to door violated the First Amendment rights of a Jehovah's Witness, specifically their freedom of speech. The ruling was 5-4 and deemed trespassing laws a better fit for the town ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!