Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
After habeas corpus relief, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, recognizing no breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. [1] Salinas v. Texas (2013), a plurality opinion, held that mere silence during prearrest interrogations is inadequate to establish invocation of the right to remain silent, if the defendant has already chosen to speak ...
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning evidence obtained as part of an unlawful arrest. Reversing the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Ohio police arrested defendant without probable cause, so the criminally-punishable evidence found on his person during an incidental search was inadmissible.
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. [1] In doing so, the Court extended the holding of New York v.
He was elected Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney on November 2, 2004, with nearly 60% of the vote. He was reelected in 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. Deters resigned as Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney after being appointed to the Supreme Court of Ohio in 2023.
The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in a case filed by The Dispatch against Columbus police. The Dispatch filed the lawsuit last year after Columbus police declined to release ...
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.
In fact, according to the Supreme Court ruling, K.G. and her attorney had the report from the psychologist for almost a year, didn't question him or subpoenaed him to the May 22 hearing for cross ...