Search for: "Apprendi v. New Jersey"
Results 181 - 200
of 261
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2018, 9:42 am
”) Apprendi New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory prescribed maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [read post]
2 Nov 2006, 7:55 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the panel found the reasoning persuasive. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 5:54 am
This appeal concerns the constitutionality of a provision of New Jersey's hate crime laws that allows enhanced sentencing in any case in which a defendant who commits a crime acts with a biased purpose. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 8:04 am
New Jersey, a case that "revolutionized sentencing laws. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 7:13 pm
New Jersey, which prohibits sentencing schemes that allowed judges to make factual findings altering the range of punishment, would no longer apply against the states [read post]
15 May 2010, 10:42 pm
In a case called, Apprendi v. [read post]
19 Feb 2007, 5:05 am
New Jersey. [read post]
28 May 2024, 9:07 am
New Jersey (2000); Ramos v. [read post]
29 May 2007, 8:03 am
New Jersey in 2000 limiting judges' power to impose enhanced sentences. [read post]
30 Jan 2010, 7:05 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 5:08 am
New Jersey, 530 U. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 10:14 am
Apprendi v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 12:48 pm
Under Apprendi v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 8:35 am
New Jersey (2000) and its capital follow-on, Ring v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 12:04 pm
New Jersey and Ring v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 9:49 am
New Jersey, requiring juries — not judges — to find facts to support enhancing a criminal sentence 11-9953 — Boyer v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 8:00 pm
New Jersey. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 7:11 am
New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 11:00 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the forerunner of the Court's landmark decisions in Blakely v. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 8:22 am
(4) Whether the District Court violated Apprendi v. [read post]
