Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 was constitutional, which permitted the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially a danger to society.
The Eighth Amendment was adopted, as part of the Bill of Rights, in 1791.It is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like cases have usually done ... that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
One example of a large bail requirement was a case in Texas where New York real estate heir Robert Durst received a bail of $3 billion. The Durst's lawyer appealed the bail to the Texas Court of Appeals. The court responded that "it could not find a case where bail was set, let alone upheld, at even 1 percent of any of the amounts against the ...
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement.
Bail will be exonerated where the performance of the condition is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of the law. Court membership; Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase Associate Justices Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne Samuel F. Miller · David Davis Stephen J. Field · William Strong Joseph P. Bradley · Ward Hunt
The rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to its statutory authority under the Rules Enabling Act. [1] The Supreme Court must transmit a copy of its rules to the United States Congress no later than May 1 of the year in which they are to go into effect, and the new rule can then become effective no earlier than December 1 of that year.
Although Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough (pictured) rejected a categorical application of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus for English courts in the year 1809, the doctrine survives in some American jurisdictions. [1] Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin [2] maxim [3] meaning "false in one thing, false in everything". [4]
One of its provisions, the Truth-in-Evidence Act, eliminated the exclusionary rule for unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The Court rejected Greenwood's claim that the amendment violated the Due Process Clause. It held that so long as the police conduct did not violate federal law, "California could permissibly conclude that the benefits of ...