Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[3] [note 2] However, after the trial in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court had issued its opinion in Griffin v. California, striking down the part of the California Constitution that allowed prosecutors to comment on defendants' failure to testify (as a violation of the Fifth Amendment's right to silence). There was no question that the prosecution ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review: a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions, and a requirement that parties must have standing.
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a California woman who said her rights were violated after federal officials refused to allow her husband into the country, in part, because of the way ...
On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 judgment striking down the California law as unconstitutional on the basis of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow unconstitutional.