Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the California District Court of Appeal. In an opinion by Justice Douglas, expressing the view of six members of the Court, it was held that the denial of counsel under the California rule of procedure stated above violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. Bill of Rights. Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides that: . Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have ...
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Its decision is part of a long line of cases that eventually led to the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.
Taylor v. United States: 495 U.S. 575 (1990) definition of "burglary" under certain sentence enhancement provisions of the federal criminal code Burnham v. Superior Court of California: 495 U.S. 604 (1990) physical presence as a requirement for personal jurisdiction Duro v. Reina: 495 U.S. 676 (1990) Indian tribes have no jurisdiction over ...
Amending the United States Constitution is a two-step process. Proposals to amend it must be properly adopted and ratified before becoming operative. A proposed amendment may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either: The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House deem it necessary; or
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.
Read more California race guides More election news Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.