Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Application of Gault; 99 Ariz. 181 (1965), Supreme Court of Arizona, Rehearing denied Holding; Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Harris County Juvenile Justice Center. The American juvenile justice system is the primary system used to handle minors who are convicted of criminal offenses. The system is composed of a federal and many separate state, territorial, and local jurisdictions, with states and the federal government sharing sovereign police power under the common authority of the United States Constitution.
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944) Important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States based on the concurring opinion of California Supreme Court justice Roger Traynor who stated "that a manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market ...
Justice Scalia's plurality part of his opinion famously criticized Justice Brennan's dissent by accusing it of "replac[ing] judges of the law with a committee of philosopher-kings". [13] Justice O'Connor was the key vote in both cases, being the lone justice to concur in the two. Sixteen years later, Roper v. Simmons overruled Stanford.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that juveniles in juvenile criminal proceedings were not entitled to a jury trial by the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. [1] The Court's plurality opinion left the precise reasoning for the decision unclear. [2]
Another young thug, just 12 years old, has already been busted six times, but also roams the streets at will after being cycled through a state juvenile justice system that is handcuffed by lax ...
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), [2] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. [3] [4] The ruling applied even to those persons who had committed murder as a juvenile, extending beyond Graham v.
Officials at the state Department of Juvenile Justice did not respond to questions about YSI. A department spokeswoman, Meghan Speakes Collins, pointed to overall improvements the state has made in its contract monitoring process, such as conducting more interviews with randomly selected youth to get a better understanding of conditions and analyzing problematic trends such as high staff turnover.