Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 20 Neb. L. Rev. 251 (1941). Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Supreme Court Decisions on Federal Criminal Procedure, 14 Rocky Mntn. L. Rev. 105 (1941).
Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the right to a speedy trial.Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that a defendant cannot prospectively waive the protections of the Speedy Trial Act. [1]
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the right of defendants in criminal cases to a speedy trial. The Court held that determinations of whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated must be made on a case-by-case basis, and set ...
The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...". [ 1 ] The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022) The firing of a public high school football coach for saying a prayer on the field violated his First Amendment rights. The Court announced that the Lemon test from the landmark case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) had been abandoned by the Court in
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be ...
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the trial court ruled against Muniz, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court decision and ordered a new trial, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear the case. [8] At issue in this case is whether the statements from Muniz were properly admissible at his trial.