Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Robinson v. California: A state cannot make a person's status as an addict a crime; only behaviors can be criminal. 1st 1968 Powell v. Texas: Similarly to Robinson v. California, a state may not criminalize the status of alcoholism itself; the state may only prohibit behaviors. 8th
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.
The number of findings of diminished responsibility has been matched by a fall in unfitness to plead and insanity findings. [11] A plea of diminished capacity is different from a plea of insanity in that "reason of insanity" is a full defense while "diminished capacity" is merely a plea to a lesser crime. [23]
The AP's analysis of Capitol riot sentencing data reinforces a firmly established tenet of the U.S. criminal justice system: Pleading guilty and cooperating with authorities carries a substantial ...
Since the 1991 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act, if the judge determines that the defendant is unfit to plead, a "trial of the facts" is held in which evidence is heard and the jury asked to determine whether the defendant did the act or made the omission charged against them as the offence. [9]
The parents of a 13-year-old girl who was run over by a suicidal driver in Malibu in 2010 are appealing to California Gov. Gavin Newsom to stop the felon from being released on parole.
A heartless California serial killer eerily sang road tunes in court while his victims’ families gave impact statements during his sentencing. David Misch began blaring out “99 Bottles of Beer ...
California (1992) established a presumption of competency. [7] Much like a presumption of innocence, a defendant is presumed competent to stand trial unless it is proven otherwise. Unlike a presumption of innocence, where the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, CST is determined only by a preponderance of the evidence. [21]