enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Cunningham v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham_v._California

    Cunningham v. 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.

  3. Ewing v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewing_v._California

    Michigan, [2] the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade, [3] the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.

  4. Hurtado v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurtado_v._California

    Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), [1] was a landmark case [2] [3] decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments, as distinguished from the federal government, to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions.

  5. Lange v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_v._California

    Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances requirement related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled unanimously that the warrantless entry into a home by police in pursuit of a misdemeanant is not unequivocally justified.

  6. Supreme Court upholds Californian's drug trafficking ...

    www.aol.com/news/supreme-court-upholds...

    The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a California woman's drug smuggling conviction that was based in part on an expert's testimony that criminal gangs rarely use "blind mules" to bring drugs ...

  7. Lockyer v. Andrade - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade

    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.

  8. Summary offence - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence

    The Melbourne Magistrates' Court.In Victoria, Australia, all summary offences are heard in the Magistrates' Court. A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, [1] [2] [3] without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence).

  9. How the Trump election subversion indictment changed after ...

    www.aol.com/trump-indictment-loses-allegations...

    The special counsel’s new indictment charging former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election made changes large and small to accommodate the Supreme Court’s ...