Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Harris, 465 U.S. 37 (1984) — A state appellate court, before it affirms a death sentence, is not required to compare the sentence in the case before it with the penalties imposed in similar cases if requested to do so by the prisoner. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) — Mandatory appellate review is not required in death penalty cases.
4th Amendment; even absent a warrant, the search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home Maynard v. Cartwright: 486 U.S. 356 (1988) cruel and unusual punishment, death penalty Webster v. Doe: 486 U.S. 592 (1988) ability for CIA firings and hirings to be judicially reviewed Schweiker v. Chilicky: 487 U.S. 412 ...
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for a crime in which the victim did not die and the victim's death was not intended.
The Court also found that the death penalty "comports with the basic concept of human dignity at the core of the [Eighth] Amendment". The death penalty serves two principal social purposes—retribution and deterrence. "In part, capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct".
Pages in category "United States Fourth Amendment case law" The following 200 pages are in this category, out of approximately 253 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
Republican lawmakers violated the Tennessee Constitution when they passed a law this spring giving the state attorney general more authority to argue certain death penalty cases, according to a ...
Citing Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, the Supreme Court remanded this case to a Florida appellate court for consideration of whether arbitration was required for some of the claims alleged. Bobby v. Dixon: 10-1540: 2011-11-07 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (28 U.S.C. § 2254) and Harrington v.
Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the opinion of the Court, writing separately to explain his concerns with the death penalty in general. [6] [7] He wrote that the case questioned the "justification for the death penalty itself". He characterized the motivation behind the death penalty as an antithesis to modern values: