Critique of the Juvenile Death Penalty in the United States: A Global Perspective
|
|
- Miles Gardner
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Duquesne University Law Review, Winter, 2004 version 6 By: Lori Edwards Critique of the Juvenile Death Penalty in the United States: A Global Perspective I. Introduction 1. Since 1990, only seven countries in the world have been documented as executing juvenile offenders: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the United States of America. Yemen has now outlawed the executions of juveniles and the President of Pakistan, in accordance with legislation passed in 2000, commuted the death sentences of all death row juvenile offenders. Of the remaining five countries that execute childhood offenders, the United States has carried out the largest number of executions. This raises the question of whether the United States is violating international treaties to which it is a party and other treaties that, although not a party to, are accepted by many of the world's nations. II. The United States' Stance, International Treaties and the World View 2. Applying the death penalty to juvenile offenders is a concept that is older than the Constitution of the United States. The first documented juvenile execution was that of Thomas Graunger, in 1642, in Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts. Since then, 366 juvenile offenders have been executed in the United States and of these, twenty-two were executed between 1973 and While the United States continues its policy of sentencing juveniles to the death penalty, international standards have moved away from the death penalty in favor of protection for those under the age of eighteen. The international community's change in attitude was gradual; it began in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signed in 1948 by the United States, the document's preamble 1 states, "member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms." The Declaration specifically mandates in Article 5 that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." While the death penalty is not directly referred to in the Declaration, the Declaration would later become acknowledged as one of the first documents to recognize universal rights and to develop a plan to implement those rights among all member states. 3. In 1977, two additional Protocols were added to the Geneva Convention of 12 August The First Additional Protocol, Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts directly 1 A preamble is an introduction or explanation of what is to follow. It is the key of a statute, to open the minds to the wrongs which are to be remedied, and the objectives which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statutes.
2 2 addressed the execution of juveniles. It stated that the death penalty for an offense related to armed conflict would not be carried out on individuals under the age of eighteen at the time of the act. The Second Additional Protocol, Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, stated that individuals who were not eighteen at the time of the offense, who were pregnant, or who were mothers of young children would not receive the death penalty. While the United States was the motivating force behind the first Geneva Convention in 1864 and signed its multiple successive treaties, the United States has not ratified the two protocols from The next significant agreement, which went into effect in 1978, was the American Convention on Human Rights. It contained a statement that a person under 18 years of age or over 70 or any pregnant woman would not receive the death penalty. The United States signed the Convention but never ratified it. 5. In 1984, the United Nations signed the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, which represents the strong agreement that existed among nations regarding the minimization, if not the abolition, of the death penalty. However, since the document was not voted upon, it is not legally binding. The document states that any person under the age of eighteen at the time of the crime will not be sentenced to death and such a penalty will not be used on pregnant women, new mothers, or those who have become insane. 6. In 1990, the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force. It included a statement that children under the age of eighteen would not be sentenced to capital punishment or life imprisonment without the possibility of release. At least 191 nations ratified this United Nations document with the exception of two countries, Somalia and the United States. III. The United States' Reservation to International Views on Juvenile Capital Punishment 7. While the United States may not be a party to many of the treaties that contain prohibitions on the execution of juveniles, it is a member of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ["ICCPR"]. Before the United States ratified the ICCPR in 1992, it entered five reservations. Among them was a reservation to Article 6, which prohibited the execution of persons under eighteen. This reservation is contrary to the terms of the ICCPR because Article 4 prohibits derogations 2 from Article 6. The United States also included a claim of its right to try juveniles as adults in certain circumstances. Of the 144 signatories to the treaty, the United States was the only nation that entered a reservation to Article 6. This 2 derogations: the partial taking away of the effectiveness of a law; a partial repeal or abolition of a law. To derogate from a law is to enact something which is contrary to it, to impair it.
3 3 resulted in eleven foreign nations filing complaints against the United States with the Human Rights Commission. IV. Determining International Law 8. Treaties are an important tool for comparing the policy of the United States with the world-view because they are sources that help to determine whether domestic laws are in accordance with international treaties and policies. In deciding a juvenile death penalty case, American constitutional law may provide a basis for appeal, particularly the Eight Amendment dealing with cruel and unusual punishment, but international law may also be introduced. The three primary sources of international law are treaties, customary international law, and jus cogens 3 norms. Jus Cogens are "those [treaties] from which no derogation can be justified and which can only be changed by a subsequent norm of the same character." The United States Supreme Court, as early as 1804, stated, "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains." It is clear that this ideology has filtered down to the lower courts as exemplified by a 1980 opinion that stated that the United States is a nation " which, in its relations with foreign states, is bound both to observe and accept norms of international law." 9. The Supreme Court has employed international law as a basis for deciding cases. Therefore, the issue of whether or not the abolition of the juvenile death penalty has become customary and a jus cogens norm is raised. After evaluating Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Convention, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Safeguards Guaranteeing the Protection of the Rights of those Facing the Death Penalty, the Covenant on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a strong argument exists that the international norm no longer supports the execution of juvenile offenders. V. United States Case Law 10. The issue of whether the United States is fulfilling its obligations to the treaties it agreed to was raised in Domingues v. Nevada. When Domingues was seventeen, he was convicted of murdering a woman and her four year-old son, a crime Domingues committed when he was sixteen. Following his sentence, he filed a motion for a correction of illegal sentence arguing that the "execution of a juvenile offender violates an international treaty ratified by the United States and violates customary international 3 Jus cogens refer to the principles of international law which are so fundamental that no nation may ignore them or attempt to contract out of them through treaties. For example, genocide and participating in a slave trade are thought to be jus cogens. According to this author, executing juveniles falls into this category. Note the definition in the text.
4 4 law." The treaty Domingues was referring to was the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ["ICCPR"]. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that since the United States entered a reservation to the article which forbids the sentencing of juveniles to the death penalty, Domingues was not illegally sentenced. However, the opinion did not discuss whether sentencing juveniles to the death penalty was contrary to international law. 11. Judge Rose noted in his dissenting opinion that since Article 4 of the ICCPR prohibits derogating the prohibition on the execution of those under eighteen; the real issue is whether or not the United States is a party to the treaty. If the reservation it added to Article 6 was essential to the United States' acceptance of the entire treaty, the ratification may be null. However, if evidence exists that the United States intended to accept the treaty as a whole, it could be bound by all of the provisions regardless of the reservation. As a result, Justice Rose would reverse the denial of Domingues' motion by the district court and remand the case for a hearing on the impact of the ICCPR on juvenile sentencing. 12. The Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex parte 4 Pressley also examined the issue of whether the United States' reservation to the ICCPR was invalid. Pressley was sentenced to death for murdering two individuals during a robbery when he was under the age of eighteen. On appeal, he raised the issue of whether international law and international treaties prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders. The court was not convinced that the Senate's reservation to the ICCPR was illegal. The opinion further noted that state laws permitting the death penalty for those under eighteen have withstood constitutional examination despite the different treaties. The court cited cases that were based on constitutional law rather than international law. 13. The first case referenced in Ex parte Pressley was Stanford v. Kentucky which held that sixteen and seventeen year-old individuals could be sentenced to death without violating the Eighth Amendment's bar on cruel and unusual punishment. Kevin Stanford was 17 years of age at the time of his arrest, on January 7, 1981, for murder, robbery, rape and theft of Baerbel Poore, a twenty-year old gas station attendant and mother. Stanford received the death penalty. Four Justices: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens, dissented. In their opinion, the execution of juvenile offenders violates contemporary standards of decency and is seen as unacceptable in the international community. 14. Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the Court, that capital punishment for a crime committed at 16 or 17 years of age does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A violation of the Eighth Amendment depends on whether it is one of "those modes or acts 4 The phrase ex parte means "by or for one party". An ex parte application is made to protect privacy. It is used in cases involving juveniles so that the case is sealed and anonymity is maintained.
5 5 of punishment... considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted 5 or is contrary to the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Accordingly, this sentence would not have been cruel and unusual in the 18th century, since, at that time, 14 year olds were legally responsible for their actions. 15. Secondly, Judge Scalia admonished the Court not to substitute its own judgment in outlawing juvenile executions for that of the American people. The primary and most reliable evidence of the people's will is the pattern of federal and state laws which do not present a national consensus against the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders. Of the 37 States that permit capital punishment, only 15 states decline to impose it on 16-year-olds and 12 states on 17-year-olds. 16. With regard to the issue of maturity between adults and juveniles, Justice Scalia concluded that maturity is neither universal nor significant enough to justify a rule excluding juveniles from the death penalty. On the issue of capital punishment, individualized consideration is a constitutional requirement. The age of responsibility for committing a capital crime should not be compared to the minimum legal age for drinking, driving and voting The second case cited in Ex parte Pressley, and based on the Eighth Amendment, is Thompson v. Oklahoma, a precedent to Stanford v. Kentucky. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment forbid the execution of an individual who was sixteen years of age or younger at the time the crime was committed. The opinion stated that "it would offend civilized standards of decency to execute a person... less than 16 years old at the time of his or her offense which is consistent with the views... expressed by... other nations that share our Anglo-American heritage, and by the leading members of the Western European community." 18. Reviewing these two Supreme Court cases, Stanford v Kentucky and Thompson v Oklahoma, it appears that the cases which the Supreme Court of Alabama relied on do not actually support its holding in Pressley. Not only are the holdings in Stanford and Thompson based on constitutional law, but also the remarks made by the Supreme Court relating to international law appear to reject juvenile capital punishment rather than support its continuation. 19. One of the more recent cases that raised the issue of Article 6 in the ICCPR was Servin v. Nevada. Servin was sentenced to death by lethal injection for the murder and robbery of a woman, a crime he committed when he was sixteen years old. While the Supreme Court of Nevada upheld its decision in Domingues, it reversed Servin's death sentence based upon a state statute that required the court to con- 5 The 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights were added to the U.S. Constitution on December 15, In 1971 The Unites States ratified the 26 th Amendment to the Constitution granting the right to vote to 18 year olds. The minimum driving age is 16.
6 6 sider Servin's age at the time of the offense as a mitigating factor, which would make the death penalty excessive punishment. Servin was re-sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. VI. The United States May Review its Stance 20. In 2002, three United States Supreme Court cases suggest that the future of the juvenile death penalty rests on shaky grounds. In June, the Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia. Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery and capital murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, Atkins argued that he is "mentally retarded" and, therefore, could not be sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overruled the Supreme Court of Virginia.. Referring to the Eighth Amendment, the court held that sentencing a mentally retarded criminal to the death penalty is excessive punishment. In the Court's reasoning, there are references to mental capacity and childlike qualities which could be referred to when deciding future juvenile death penalty cases. 21. Prior to this decision, in Penry v. Lynaugh, (1989), the Court held that executing persons with mental retardation was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment because a "national consensus" had not developed against executing those with mental retardation. At the time, only two states prohibited such executions. Since then, 16 more states and the federal government have enacted laws prohibiting the execution of the mentally retarded. 22. In the second case, Patterson v. Texas, a divided United States Supreme Court denied Patterson a stay of execution for the capital murder he committed when he was seventeen years old. Three Supreme Court Justices - Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer - dissented, stating that because of the consensus that exists among the states and in the international community against the execution of a juvenile offender, the Court should review its position on this issue. Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, stated his belief that the Eighth Amendment prohibits juvenile death penalty. 23. Finally, in In re 7 Stanford, the United States Supreme Court denied an application for a writ of habeas corpus requesting the Court to hold his execution unconstitutional since he was under the age of eighteen when he committed the offense. A bare majority of the Court had rejected that submission 13 years earlier, in Stanford v. Kentucky (1989). Again, the Court was split in its decision. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer believed that, given their recent decision in Atkins and the bare majority of the Court that supported the holding in the 1989 Stanford case (that the Eighth Amendment does not 7 In re is used for a proceeding where one party makes an application to the court.the English translation is "in
7 7 VII. The Current Status of Juvenile Death Row Inmates 24. In the United States, there are currently seventy-eight individuals on death row who received death sentences for crimes they committed when they were juveniles. While the international community continues to require a statement in its treaties and in its documents that capital punishment for juveniles will not be tolerated, the United States maintains its policy of sentencing juveniles to the death penalty. The Supreme Court has stated, through a bare majority, that the juvenile death penalty is constitutional based on the Eighth Amendment, and the Supreme Court has never based its decision on international law. In light of the Court's recent decision in Atkins, the issue of whether the United States will recognize a prohibition against the juvenile death penalty is due. The question is, will the court strike down the juvenile death penalty on Eighth Amendment grounds, (by making an analogy to its holding in Atkins), or will it strike it down by showing deference to international norms and treaties? VIII. Conclusion 25. Given the standards in Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Convention, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Safeguards Guaranteeing the Protection of the Rights of those Facing the Death Penalty, the Covenant on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is clear that international law and the jus cogens are opposed to the juvenile death penalty. 26. As the world moves away from the acceptance of capital punishment for juvenile offenders, states may do likewise in their legislation. America currently has forty death penalty jurisdictions. Eighteen of those jurisdictions mandate a minimum age of eighteen at the time the offense was committed before the penalty can be imposed. Five jurisdictions have chosen the age of seventeen, and the other seventeen jurisdictions use the age of sixteen. Thirteen jurisdictions do not apply the death penalty at all. In reality, it is becoming increasingly clear that if the juvenile death penalty is declared unconstitutional, it will not be because of current international standards. Rather, current case law indicates it will be overturned on Eighth Amendment grounds. The president of the American Bar Association, Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., states that: the matter of". It is sometimes used instead of the Latin ex parte. In re Stanford is the name of the case.
8 " Executing child offenders is inconsistent with these concepts (of common decency and fundamental justice). This does not suggest that teenagers should not face punishment for violating society's laws. It does mean that they should not pay for their mistakes with their lives.... We dare not hold children accountable for their actions to the same degree as we do adults. To do so serves no principle purpose and only demeans our system of justice." IX. Addendum: The Minimum Age for Eligibility for the Death Penalty is On March 1, 2005, by a vote of 5-4 in the case of Roper v. Simmons, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were juveniles when their crimes were committed. At last, the court overruled its decision in Stanford (1989). 28. The Court compared the executing of the mentally retarded 8 to executing juvenile offenders. In addition, the Court explained that the main criterion for determining whether a particular punishment violates society s evolving standards of decency is objective evidence of a national consensus as expressed by legislative enactments and jury practices. The rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of states, the infrequent use of the punishment even where it remains on the books 9, and the consistent trend toward the abolition of the juvenile death penalty demonstrated a national consensus against the practice. The Court determined that today our society views juveniles as vulnerable to influence and immaturity. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said: "Retribution is not proportional if the law s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished by reason of youth and immaturity". 29. The Court further noted in Roper v. Simmons (2002) that the execution of juvenile offenders violated several international treaties, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and stated that the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty provides confirmation for the Court s own conclusion that the death penalty is disproportional punishment for juvenile offenders under the age of The Court s ruling affects 72 juvenile offenders in 12 states. 8 See Penry v. Lynaugh, (1989) and Atkins v. Virginia (2002) in Section V1 of this text. 9 Stanford was not executed. Kentucky Governor Paul E. Patton commuted his sentence to life without parole. He said this decision was based solely on Stanford's age at the time of the crime and reflects how public sentiment has shifted since the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling in the Stanford case.
ROPER v. SIMMONS, 543 U.S [March 1, 2005]
ROPER v. SIMMONS, 543 U.S. 551 [March 1, 2005] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to address, for the second time in a decade and a half, whether it is permissible
More information1/19/2004 8:03 PM HYLLENGRENMACROFINAL.DOC
Constitutional Law Capital Punishment of Mentally Retarded Defendants is Cruel and Unusual Under the Eighth Amendment Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationSTOP CHILD EXECUTIONS! Ending the death penalty for child offenders
STOP CHILD EXECUTIONS! Ending the death penalty for child offenders Napoleon doesn t deserve to die. I know there s got to be punishment, but death for a 17- year-old? People change... To take a child
More information(4) When the victim is under the age of twelve years. Lack of knowledge of the victim's age shall not be a defense.
Capital Punishment for the Rape of a Child is Cruel and Unusual Punishment Under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution: Kennedy v. Louisiana CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EIGHTH AMENDMENT - CRUEL
More informationFor An Act To Be Entitled
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. 0 0 0 State of Arkansas 0th General Assembly A Bill DRAFT BPG/BPG Regular Session, 0 HOUSE BILL By: Representative
More informationLecture Notes Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S (2002) Keith Burgess-Jackson 29 April 2016
Lecture Notes Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304-54 (2002) Keith Burgess-Jackson 29 April 2016 0. Composition of the Court. In Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), five justices held that capital punishment for the
More informationCRAFTING THE CASE AGAINST THE AMERICAN DEATH PENALTY
CRAFTING THE CASE AGAINST THE AMERICAN DEATH PENALTY PATRICK MULVANEY* Just a decade ago, crafting the case against the American death penalty might have seemed a quixotic exercise. Nationwide, there were
More informationLesson Plan Title Here
Lesson Plan Title Here Created By: Samantha DeCerbo and Alvalene Rogers Subject / Lesson: Constitutional Interpretation and Roper v. Simmons Grade Level: 9-12th grade(s) Overview/Description: Methods of
More informationThe Role of International Human Rights Law in the American Decision to Abolish the Juvenile Death Penalty
The Role of International Human Rights Law in the American Decision to Abolish the Juvenile Death Penalty Introduction Nine months shy of his eighteenth birthday, Christopher Simmons and one accomplice,
More informationThe Role of International Human Rights Law in the American Decision to Abolish the Juvenile Death Penalty
From the SelectedWorks of William A Feldman June, 2007 The Role of International Human Rights Law in the American Decision to Abolish the Juvenile Death Penalty William A Feldman Available at: https://works.bepress.com/william_feldman/1/
More informationA Bill Regular Session, 2017 SENATE BILL 294
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. 0 State of Arkansas st General Assembly As Engrossed: S// A Bill Regular Session, SENATE BILL By: Senator
More informationSCOTUS Death Penalty Review. Lisa Soronen State and Local Legal Center
SCOTUS Death Penalty Review Lisa Soronen State and Local Legal Center lsoronen@sso.org Modern Death Penalty Jurisprudence 1970s SCOTUS tells the states they must limit arbitrariness in who gets the death
More informationGIVEN HIM A FAIR TRIAL, THEN HANG HIM: THE SUPREME COURT S MODERN DEATH PENALTY JURISPRUDENCE *
GIVEN HIM A FAIR TRIAL, THEN HANG HIM: THE SUPREME COURT S MODERN DEATH PENALTY JURISPRUDENCE * MARK S. HURWITZ In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court ruled the arbitrary and capricious nature
More informationChapter 12 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Introduction to Corrections CJC 2000 Darren Mingear
Chapter 12 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Introduction to Corrections CJC 2000 Darren Mingear CHAPTER OBJECTIVES 12.1 Outline the history of capital punishment in the United States. 12.2 Explain the legal provisions
More informationCRIMINAL LAW A Denial of Hope: Bear Cloud III and the Aggregate Sentencing of Juveniles; Bear Cloud v. State, 2014 WY 113, 334 P.3d 132 (Wyo.
Wyoming Law Review Volume 17 Number 2 Article 3 October 2017 CRIMINAL LAW A Denial of Hope: Bear Cloud III and the Aggregate Sentencing of Juveniles; Bear Cloud v. State, 2014 WY 113, 334 P.3d 132 (Wyo.
More informationChapter 9. Sentencing, Appeals, and the Death Penalty
Chapter 9 Sentencing, Appeals, and the Death Penalty Chapter Objectives After completing this chapter, you should be able to: Identify the general factors that influence a judge s sentencing decisions.
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and Lemons, JJ. and Carrico, 1 S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and Lemons, JJ. and Carrico, 1 S.J. DARYL RENARD ATKINS v. Record No. 000395 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER June 6, 2003 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Indecent and internationally illegal The death penalty against child offenders
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Indecent and internationally illegal The death penalty against child offenders Introduction ''In my view, it's just not proper in a civilized society for the State to be in the
More informationROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER v. SIMMONS
Page 1 of 59 View enhanced case on Westlaw KeyCite this case on Westlaw Cases citing this case: Supreme Court Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts Jump to: [Opinion] [Concurrence] [Dissent 1] [Dissent
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-37,145-04 EX PARTE SCOTT LOUIS PANETTI, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION IN CAUSE NO.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-145 Opinion Delivered April 25, 2013 KUNTRELL JACKSON V. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-08-28-2] HONORABLE ROBERT WYATT, JR., JUDGE LARRY
More informationIntroduction to the Presentations: The Path to an Eighth Amendment Analysis of Mental Illness and Capital Punishment
Catholic University Law Review Volume 54 Issue 4 Summer 2005 Article 4 2005 Introduction to the Presentations: The Path to an Eighth Amendment Analysis of Mental Illness and Capital Punishment Richard
More informationAMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington. Supplementary Material
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington Supplementary Material Chapter 11: The Contemporary Era Criminal Justice/Punishments/Capital
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationNo In The Supreme Court of the United States. SOPHAL PHON, Petitioner. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY Respon den t
No. 08-1131 In The Supreme Court of the United States SOPHAL PHON, Petitioner COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY Respon den t ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, ANGELO ATWELL, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. SC ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent.
Filing # 20557369 Electronically Filed 11/13/2014 06:21:47 PM RECEIVED, 11/13/2014 18:23:37, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, ANGELO ATWELL, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs.
More informationINTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 GENERAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES... 1 3 ABOLITION... 2 4 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FAVOURING ABOLITION... 3 5 NON-USE...
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, GREGORY NIDEZ VALENCIA JR., Petitioner. Respondent, JOEY LEE HEALER, Petitioner.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GREGORY NIDEZ VALENCIA JR., Petitioner. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOEY LEE HEALER, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0151-PR
More informationAGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and
LFC Requester: AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, EMAIL ANALYSIS TO: LFC@NMLEGIS.GOV and DFA@STATE.NM.US {Include the bill no. in the email subject line, e.g., HB2,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THOMAS KNIGHT, AKA ASKARI ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD 98 9741 v. FLORIDA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CAREY DEAN MOORE
More informationKristin E. Murrock *
A COFFIN WAS THE ONLY WAY OUT: WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT S EXPLICIT BAN ON JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR NON-HOMICIDE OFFENSES IN GRAHAM V. FLORIDA IMPLICITLY BANS DE FACTO LIFE SENTENCES FOR NON-HOMICIDE
More informationNo IN THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT
E-Filed 01/24/2018 11:15:48 AM Honorable Julia Jordan Weller Clerk of the Court No. 1961635 IN THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT EX PARTE VERNON MADISON * * STATE OF ALABAMA, * EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR * JANUARY
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-01 In the Supreme Court of the United States WYATT FORBES, III Petitioner, v. TEXANSAS, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texansas BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT TEAM NUMBER 4
More informationDeference to the Majority: Why Isn't the Supreme Court Applying the Reasoning of Atkins v. Virginia to Juveniles
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 11-1-2003 Deference to the Majority:
More informationAMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington. Supplementary Material
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington Supplementary Material Chapter 11: The Contemporary Era Criminal Justice/Punishments/Juvenile
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 560 U. S. (2010) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 7412 TERRANCE JAMAR GRAHAM, PETITIONER v. FLORIDA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT
More informationSTOP CHILD EXECUTIONS! Ending the death penalty for child offenders. by Amnesty International. key to exit. about this manifesto this manifesto
[ ESC ] tap the ESC key to exit i U about this manifesto email this manifesto STOP CHILD EXECUTIONS! Ending the death penalty for child offenders by Amnesty International Not using Adobe Acrobat? Please
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-70,651-03 EX PARTE ADAM KELLY WARD, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION TO STAY THE EXECUTION TH FROM CAUSE NO.
More informationJAPAN: The Death Penalty Joint Stakeholder Report for the United Nations Universal Periodic Review
JAPAN: The Death Penalty Joint Stakeholder Report for the United Nations Universal Periodic Review Submitted by The Advocates for Human Rights a non-governmental organization in special consultative status
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 548 U. S. (2006) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04 1170 KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL LEE MARSH, II ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS [June 26, 2006] JUSTICE SOUTER,
More informationUnit V: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and the Impact on the Juvenile Justice System in America
Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and the Impact on the Juvenile Justice System in America Introduction We are now starting Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and the Impact on
More informationWritten Materials for Supreme Court Review 8 th Amendment Instructor: Joel Oster
Written Materials for Supreme Court Review 8 th Amendment Instructor: Joel Oster I. Hall v. Florida, 134 S.Ct. 1986 (2014) a. Facts: After the Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
More informationARTICLES WILLIAM J. BOWERS BENJAMIN FLEURY-STEINER VALERIE P. HANS MICHAEL E. ANTONIO
ARTICLES TOO YOUNG FOR THE DEATH PENALTY: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF COMMUNITY CONSCIENCE AND THE JUVENILE DEATH PENALTY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CAPITAL JURORS WILLIAM J. BOWERS BENJAMIN FLEURY-STEINER
More informationNC Death Penalty: History & Overview
TAB 01: NC Death Penalty: History & Overview The Death Penalty in North Carolina: History and Overview Jeff Welty April 2012, revised April 2017 This paper provides a brief history of the death penalty
More informationRemembering Furman s Comparative Proportionality: A Response to Smith and Staihar
Remembering Furman s Comparative Proportionality: A Response to Smith and Staihar William W. Berry III * I. INTRODUCTION... 65 II. COMPARATIVE PROPORTIONALITY THROUGH THE SMITH LENS...67 III. COMPARATIVE
More informationDeath is Different No Longer: Graham v. Florida and the Future of Eighth Amendment Challenges to Noncapital Sentences.
Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW ecommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2010 Death is Different No Longer: Graham v. Florida and the Future of Eighth Amendment Challenges to Noncapital
More informationThe Constitution Limits of the "National Consensus" Doctrine in Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence
BYU Law Review Volume 2012 Issue 4 Article 6 11-1-2012 The Constitution Limits of the "National Consensus" Doctrine in Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence Kevin White Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview
More informationKansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014
K a n s a s L e g i s l a t i v e R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014 O-1 Tort Claims Act O-2 Death Penalty in Kansas O-3 Kansas Administrative Procedure Act O-4 Sex
More informationStanford and Wilkins: International Law, Due Process, Children and the Death Penalty
City University of New York Law Review Volume 4 Issue 2 Spring 2002 Stanford and Wilkins: International Law, Due Process, Children and the Death Penalty Andre Ramon Soleil CUNY School of Law Follow this
More informationHow Long Is Too Long?: Conflicting State Responses to De Facto Life Without Parole Sentences After Graham v. Florida and Miller v.
Fordham Law Review Volume 82 Issue 6 Article 25 2014 How Long Is Too Long?: Conflicting State Responses to De Facto Life Without Parole Sentences After Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama Kelly Scavone
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 20, 2018
[Cite as State v. Watkins, 2018-Ohio-5137.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 13AP-133 and v. : No. 13AP-134 (C.P.C. No. 11CR-4927) Jason
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
P.O. Box 5675, Berkeley, CA 94705 USA Submission by HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES, a non-governmental organization based in special consultative status with ECOSOC, to the Human Rights Council for its Universal
More informationSentencing: The imposition of a criminal sanction by a judicial authority. (p.260)
CHAPTER 9 Sentencing Teaching Outline I. Introduction (p.260) Sentencing: The imposition of a criminal sanction by a judicial authority. (p.260) II. The Philosophy and Goals of Criminal Sentencing (p.260)
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 11, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1604 Lower Tribunal No. 79-1174 Jeffrey L. Vennisee,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed July 11, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, J. Hobart Darbyshire,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-576 / 10-1815 Filed July 11, 2012 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTINE MARIE LOCKHEART, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court
More informationCHAPTER 14 PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING CHAPTER OUTLINE. I. Introduction. II. Sentencing Rationales. A. Retribution. B. Deterrence. C.
CHAPTER 14 PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING CHAPTER OUTLINE I. Introduction II. Sentencing Rationales A. Retribution B. Deterrence C. Rehabilitation D. Restoration E. Incapacitation III. Imposing Criminal Sanctions
More informationamnesty international
[EMBARGOED FOR: 25 September 2002] Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Indecent and internationally illegal The death penalty against child offenders (Abridged Version) September 2002
More information\\server05\productn\w\wbn\42-2\wbn203.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-APR-03 10:48
\\server05\productn\w\wbn\42-2\wbn203.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-APR-03 10:48 Mandating Dignity: The United States Supreme Court s Extreme Departure From Precedent Regarding the Eighth Amendment and the Death
More informationShould Capital Punishment Receive A Death Sentence? Capital punishment is one of the most controversial and polarizing topics that
Travers 1 David Travers Professor Jordan Law 17 11 December 2013 Should Capital Punishment Receive A Death Sentence? Capital punishment is one of the most controversial and polarizing topics that exists
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationInhuman sentencing of children in Barbados
Inhuman sentencing of children in Barbados Report prepared for the Child Rights Information Network ( www.crin.org ), July 010 Introduction Capital punishment is unlawful for persons under 18 at the time
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 543 U. S. (2005) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 03 633 DONALD P. ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER, PETITIONER v. CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 1308
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 30, 2017 california legislature 2017 18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1308 Introduced by Assembly Member Mark Stone February 17, 2017 An act to amend Section 10007 of the
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
E-Filed Document Feb 23 2017 00:43:33 2016-CA-00687-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JERRARD T. COOK APPELLANT V. NO. 2016-KA-00687-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE REPLY
More informationBrooklyn Journal of International Law
Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 29 Issue 3 Article 10 2004 Continued Violations of International Law by the United States in Applying the Death Penalty to MInors and Possible Repercussions
More informationToo Young to Kill? U.S. Supreme Court Treads a Dangerous Path in Roper v. Simmons
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY Too Young to Kill? U.S. Supreme Court Treads a Dangerous Path in Roper v. Simmons Sameer P. Sarkar, MD, LLM The death penalty remains an intensely divisive topic in American society.
More informationCase 5:06-cr TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH
Case 5:06-cr-00019-TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06 CR-00019-R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
More informationKinder, Gentler, and More Capricious: The Death Penalty After Atkins v. Virginia
St. John's Law Review Volume 77 Issue 1 Volume 77, Winter 2003, Number 1 Article 5 February 2012 Kinder, Gentler, and More Capricious: The Death Penalty After Atkins v. Virginia John F. Romano Follow this
More informationFifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights
You do not need your computers today. Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights How have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments' rights of the accused been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID ELKIN, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D17-1750 STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationSTOP CHILD EXECUTIONS! Ending the death penalty for child offenders
STOP CHILD EXECUTIONS! Ending the death penalty for child offenders Napoleon doesn t deserve to die. I know there s got to be punishment, but death for a 17- year-old? People change... To take a child
More informationB. The Jury Improperly Considered an Unconstitutional Punishment for a Sixteen- Year-Old Offender...15
QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether Petitioner, a juvenile under the age of eighteen at the time of his offense, is entitled to a new sentencing hearing in light of Roper v. Simmons, given that his original
More informationSTANFORD v. KENTUCKY: DID THE COURT BITE THE CONSTITUTIONAL BULLET?
STANFORD v. KENTUCKY: DID THE COURT BITE THE CONSTITUTIONAL BULLET? INTRODUCTION When seventeen year old Kevin Stanford stormed a gas station and then raped, sodomized, and killed the station attendant,
More informationPenn State International Law Review
Penn State International Law Review Volume 18 Number 2 Dickinson Journal of International Law Article 7 1-1-2000 They Dropped the Ball: The Failure of the Nevada Supreme Court to Consider the Impact of
More informationThe Emerging Death Penalty Jurisprudence of the Roberts Court
University of New Hampshire Law Review Volume 6 Number 3 Pierce Law Review Article 5 March 2008 The Emerging Death Penalty Jurisprudence of the Roberts Court Kenneth C. Haas University of Delaware Follow
More informationPETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2002 SCOTT ALLEN HAIN, Petitioner, v. MIKE MULLIN, WARDEN OF THE OKLAHOMA STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationPamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. TARRENCE L. SMITH, Appellee. / NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-145 KUNTRELL JACKSON, VS. APPELLANT, LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered February 9, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY
More informationSTATE EX REL. MORGAN V. STATE: A SMALL STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR LOUISIANA S INCARCERATED YOUTH
STATE EX REL. MORGAN V. STATE: A SMALL STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR LOUISIANA S INCARCERATED YOUTH I. INTRODUCTION... 239 II. FACTS AND HOLDING... 241 III. LEGAL BACKGROUND: SETTING THE SCENE FOR A
More informationJuvenile Execution, Terrorist Extradition, and Supreme Court Discretion to Consider International Death Penalty Jurisprudence
London School of Economics and Political Science From the SelectedWorks of Prof. Elizabeth Burleson 2005 Juvenile Execution, Terrorist Extradition, and Supreme Court Discretion to Consider International
More informationACS NATIONAL CONVENTION STUDENT PANEL ON THE DEATH PENALTY THURSDAY, JULY 26 TH, 2007
ACS NATIONAL CONVENTION STUDENT PANEL ON THE DEATH PENALTY THURSDAY, JULY 26 TH, 2007 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, CRUELTY AND THE CONSTITUTION: CURRENT ISSUES IN THE AMERICAN DEATH PENALTY MEMORANDUM BY: COURTNEY
More informationRecent Caselaw 2017 Robert E. Shepherd, Jr. Juvenile Law and Education Conference University of Richmond School of Law
Recent Caselaw 2017 Robert E. Shepherd, Jr. Juvenile Law and Education Conference University of Richmond School of Law Julie E. McConnell Director, Children s Defense Clinic University of Richmond School
More informationAtkins v. Virginia: Death Penalty for the Mentally Retarded - Cruel and Unusual - The Crime, Not the Punishment
DePaul Law Review Volume 53 Issue 3 Spring 2004: Symposium - Race as Proxy in Law and Society: Emerging Issues in Race and the Law Article 14 Atkins v. Virginia: Death Penalty for the Mentally Retarded
More informationDONALD P. ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER, PETITIONER v. CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS 125 S. Ct. 1183
DONALD P. ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER, PETITIONER v. CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS 125 S. Ct. 1183 March 1, 2005, Decided OPINION: JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. This case
More informationTrinidad and Tobago Amnesty International submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 12 th session of the UPR Working Group, October 2011
Trinidad and Tobago Amnesty International submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 12 th session of the UPR Working Group, October 2011 B. Normative and institutional framework of the State The death
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 585 U. S. (2018) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD GERALD JORDAN 17 7153 v. MISSISSIPPI TIMOTHY NELSON EVANS, AKA TIMOTHY N. EVANS, AKA TIMOTHY EVANS, AKA TIM EVANS 17 7245 v. MISSISSIPPI
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 536 U. S. (2002) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 01 488 TIMOTHY STUART RING, PETITIONER v. ARIZONA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA [June 24, 2002] JUSTICE BREYER,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, -v- Plaintiff, Case No. [Petitioner s Name], Honorable Defendant-Petitioner, [County Prosecutor] Attorneys for
More informationF I L E D September 16, 2011
Case: 11-50447 Document: 0051160478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 16, 011 In
More informationNo. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * * * * * *
Judgment rendered May 17, 2017. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 543 U. S. (2005) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 12, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-289 Lower Tribunal No. 77-471C Adolphus Rooks, Appellant,
More informationDeadly Justice. A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty. Appendix B. Mitigating Circumstances State-By-State.
Deadly Justice A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty Frank R. Baumgartner Marty Davidson Kaneesha Johnson Arvind Krishnamurthy Colin Wilson University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department
More informationUNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW SPRING Capital Punishment and the Constitution Seminar LAW 871 (3 credits)
UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW SPRING 2019 Course: Instructor: Capital Punishment and the Constitution Seminar LAW 871 (3 credits) John Bessler Phone: (410) 837-4690 Office: AL 1108 E-mail: jbessler@ubalt.edu
More informationThe Judicial Branch. CP Political Systems
The Judicial Branch CP Political Systems Standards Content Standard 4: The student will examine the United States Constitution by comparing the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DENNIS SOCHOR, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-1841 DENNIS SOCHOR, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARTHUR CALDERON, WARDEN v. RUSSELL COLEMAN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 14a0184p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RICHARD WERSHE, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THOMAS
More informationSupreme Court Watch: Recent Decisions And Upcoming CriminalCases For The Docket
American University Criminal Law Brief Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 8 Supreme Court Watch: Recent Decisions And Upcoming CriminalCases For The 2006-2007 Docket Andrew Myerberg Recommended Citation Myerberg,
More information