Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Indicted for contempt of Congress, but acquitted in trial; [26] Later convicted for lying to Congress and sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000. [27] [28] Jack Quinn, White House Counsel: May 9, 1996 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Not considered
Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.
The Ineligibility Clause (sometimes also called the Emoluments Clause, [1] or the Incompatibility Clause, [2] or the Sinecure Clause [3]) is a provision in Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution [4] that makes each incumbent member of Congress ineligible to hold an office established by the federal government during their tenure in Congress; [5] it also bars officials ...
Various legislation was passed, including the Conspiracies Act of July 31, 1861. Because the law defining treason in the constitution was so strict, new legislation was necessary to prosecute defiance of the government. [63] Many of the people indicted on charges of conspiracy were not taken to trial, but instead were arrested and detained. [63]
A pardon is an executive order granting clemency for a conviction. It may be granted "at any time" after the commission of the crime. [17] As per Justice Department regulations, convicted persons may only apply five or more years after their sentence has been completed. [1]
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must ...
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).