Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Cert. to the Supreme Court of California Holding; The failure to grant this indigent petitioner seeking initial review of his conviction the services of an advocate, as contrasted with an amicus curiae, which would have been available to an appellant with financial means, violated petitioner's rights to fair procedure and equality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the constitutional limitations on the use by prosecutors of peremptory challenges and of the Texas procedure termed the "jury shuffle." [1]
Justice Stevens pointed out that it was possible to avoid the Sixth Amendment violation in Booker's case without making any changes to the Guidelines at all. [9] Solely on the statute of conviction, the maximum Guidelines sentence Booker could have received was 262 months.
The 2005 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 3, 2005, and concluded October 1, 2006. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion. [1]
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part, 2005 WL 2375202 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), affirmed, 490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2005).: Holding (1) Top government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates absent evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity.
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.
A proposed amendment is treated like many other motions in that it could be debated and voted on. This could be done even in the case of a friendly amendment. [6] An amendment could pass with a majority vote, regardless of the vote required to pass the main motion. [7]
Decided October 31, 2005. Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. On appeal from a conviction for conspiracy to sell narcotics, the Court of Appeals had ruled that the time limit set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 for motions for a new trial was a requirement of subject-matter jurisdiction. It accordingly allowed the government to raise the issue ...