Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the ...
Case Ruling Right 1976 Profitt v. Florida: Permitted comparison of mitigating and aggravating factors to decide death penalty decisions. [3] See also Furman v. Georgia (1972), and Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 1st 1986 Ford v. Wainwright: Preventing the execution [capital punishment] of the insane, requiring an evaluation of competency and an ...
In Rompilla v. Beard, the Supreme Court faulted the defendant's lawyer for not reviewing a file that the attorney knew would be used by the prosecution in the sentencing phase of the trial. [17] In Glover v. United States, a lawyer was held to be ineffective when he failed to object to the judge's miscalculation of the defendant's sentence. [18]
Ewing v. Goldstein 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864 ( Cal. Ct. App. 2004) is a landmark court case that extended California mental health professional 's duty to protect identifiable victims of potentially violent persons, as established by Tarasoff v.
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel." [1] Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that the "bright line" rule established under Edwards v.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Article 121 of the Peruvian Penal Code states that before the prosecution begins, a judge must inform a defendant of his or her right to counsel, and if the defendant does not choose a lawyer, one will be assigned to the case. If no lawyer is available, an "honorable person" must take the place of a lawyer.
Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983) [1] is a landmark case in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional's duty to predict dangerousness includes consulting a patient's prior records, and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual; simply warning the foreseeable victim is ...