Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The code was issued during a time when the court faced great criticism, especially around the conduct of justice Clarence Thomas.It was shown that he received undisclosed gifts of luxury travel [2] and that he was involved with cases that were related to the political activities of his wife, Ginni Thomas, who worked to overturn the 2020 election results in the weeks leading up to the January 6 ...
The Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, but the code lacks a ...
According to the outlet, Cannon did not disclose that she attended a May 2023 banquet honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at the Law and Economics Center at George Mason ...
A former family law commissioner refused gifts from litigants while U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted thousands of dollars in gifts. Where’s the ethics?: From our readers
The Court also rejected the premise that there is a bright line as to what constitutes a gift for taxation purposes. Id at 287. Instead, when determining whether something is a gift for taxation purposes, the critical consideration is the transferor's intention. Duberstein at 285-286 (citing Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937)). This ...
The Court held that Kyles should be granted a new trial. The Court noted Brady v.Maryland (1963), which held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
Clarance Thomas's gifts to Samuel Alito's secret recording. Recent scandals plague the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices embroiled in ethics scandals: From private jets and real estate to ...
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]