Search for: "Roper v. State" Results 361 - 380 of 423
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2009, 9:03 am
And: “The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on behalf of the 5-4 majority in Roper v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 9:36 am by Lyle Denniston
In both cases, their lawyers argued that a life-without-parole sentence for a minor violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”  The petitions relied heavily upon the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Roper v. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 11:06 pm by Jeff Gamso
The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder.Herrera v. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 6:06 am
Roper, Stanford University, on Thursday, September 1, 2016 Tags: Basic, Disclosure, Erica John Fund v. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 7:04 am by jonathanturley
The implications of the more sweeping interpretation  was evident in Phelps-Roper v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:14 pm
Roper, No. 07-1234 "Denial of a petition for habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) the Missouri procedural rule requiring sufficient pleading before granting an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel constituted independent and adequate state grounds barring federal review; 2) there was no clear and convincing evidence of discriminatory intent in jury selection; and 3) the prosecutor's comments at trial did not deny defendant due process. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 7:14 am
 And at ACSblog, Charles Ogletree (who submitted an amicus brief on behalf of petitioners in the cases) urges the Court to affirm the reasoning put forth in Roper v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 7:13 am by Ken Kersch
Florida (2010), which voided on 8th Amendment grounds a sentence of life without parole for armed burglary (not including homicide)(and Roper v. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm
Roper , No. 08-2593 Denial of petition for habeas relief is affirmed where the district court did not err in denying relief as the state courts correctly identified and applied the relevant Supreme Court precedents governing the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause. [read post]