enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Napue v. Illinois - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napue_v._Illinois

    Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of ...

  3. Herring v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring_v._United_States

    Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally operates to suppress – i.e. prevent the introduction at trial of – evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights. "Suppression of evidence, however, has always been [the court's] last resort, not [its] first impulse.

  4. Dismissed as improvidently granted - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissed_as_improvidently...

    The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [a] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." However, justices sometimes file separate opinions, and the opinion of the Court may instead give reasons for the DIG.

  5. Berghuis v. Thompkins - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

    Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.

  6. Batson v. Kentucky - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

    Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.

  7. Santosky v. Kramer - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santosky_v._Kramer

    Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights.The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children.

  8. Trump cites US Supreme Court obstruction case as reason to ...

    www.aol.com/news/trump-cites-us-supreme-court...

    Lawyers for Donald Trump on Thursday told the U.S. Supreme Court that the former president's criminal trial on charges of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss should be delayed because the ...

  9. Nix v. Williams - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Williams

    Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule.The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree".