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, 30 Ky. L.J. 360 (1942). Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 7 Mo. L. Rev. 263 (1942).
This case was the beginning of the plenary power legal doctrine that has been used in Indian case law to limit tribal sovereignty. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) An Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and the co-operation of the United States Federal government. United States v.
Criminal procedure: 389 U.S. 347 (1967) wiretapping as search and seizure Zschernig v. Miller: 389 U.S. 429 (1968) foreign relations and state property law preventing inheritance by nonresident aliens: Mora v. McNamara: 389 U.S. 934 (1967) denial of certiorari in a case questioning the legality of the Vietnam War: Haynes v. United States: 390 U ...
These lists are sorted chronologically by chief justice and include most major cases decided by the court. Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth Courts (October 19, 1789 – December 15, 1800) Marshall Court (February 4, 1801 – July 6, 1835)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States, the prosecution must turn over to a criminal defendant any significant evidence in its possession that suggests the defendant is not guilty (exculpatory evidence).
Case history; Prior: Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Holding; Mere omission of any mention of intent from the criminal statute was not to be construed as the elimination of that element from the crimes denounced, and that where intent was an element of the crime charged, its existence was a question of fact to be determined by the jury.
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]
Hughes Anderson Bagley was indicted on 15 counts of violating federal narcotic and firearm statutes in the Western District of Washington in October 1977. In preparation for trial, to be held in December, Bagley's counsel filed a discovery motion that requested information on the witnesses the prosecution intended to call, their criminal records, and any promises made to them in exchange for ...