Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Here’s what the Texas penal code on execution of judgment states: TITLE 1, Art. 43.03 A court may not order a defendant confined under Subsection (a) of this article unless the court at a ...
The appointment of attorneys for indigent defendants in capital cases is a source of controversy. District Court judges appoint lawyers for trial and a defendant's initial appeal. Of the 131 inmates executed under Governor George W. Bush, 43 were represented by an attorney who at some point has been disbarred, suspended or otherwise sanctioned ...
In the United States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense. [1]
De Leon v. Perry was a federal lawsuit challenging Texas marriage law, specifically the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couples on February 26, 2014, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction.
A pauper's oath is a sworn statement or oath by a person of being completely destitute or a pauper, without much money or property.. A person without the ability to pay court costs, also known as "being indigent", has the option to swear a pauper's oath to file a lawsuit without paying filing fees.
Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) Indigent defendants may be denied counsel when prosecuted by a state. (Overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)) Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) All defendants have the right to an attorney and must be provided one by the state if they are unable to afford legal counsel. Escobedo v.
Absence of defendant's counsel at the time of his arraignment violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Hoyt v. Florida: 368 U.S. 57 (1961) all-male jury in a woman's murder trial did not violate Fourteenth Amendment Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction: 368 U.S. 278 (1961)
In the United States, federal case law dictates the privileges permissible and prohibited in federal trials, [2] while state case law governs their scope in state courts. A common rule for both the communications privilege and the testimonial privilege is that, "absent a lawful marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership, there is no privilege."