Search for: ""Ring v. Arizona" OR "536 U.S. 584"" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2015, 7:07 am by David Markus
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).Judge Martinez may be vindicated after all. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 5:21 pm by Jon Sands
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)) in habeas proceedings. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 10:07 am by Kent Scheidegger
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 597-598, n. 4 (2002), the question decided was unambiguously limited to the finding of the aggravating circumstance, not the weighing. [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 8:35 am by Jacek Stramski
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002); and (7) the death penalty is not proportionate in this case. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 7:26 am by SOG Staff
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), where the court held that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, rather than a judge, must determine any fact upon which a legislature conditions an increase in the maximum punishment for a criminal offense. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 7:26 am by SOG Staff
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), where the court held that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, rather than a judge, must determine any fact upon which a legislature conditions an increase in the maximum punishment for a criminal offense. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 10:21 am
ARIZONA, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED TO THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO ENACT THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF ELEMENTS OF CAPITAL MURDER, A PURELY LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONCLAIM SEVENTEENTHE PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTSCLAIM EIGHTEENTHE MANNER IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD CARRY OUT PETITIONER'S EXECUTION VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 12:16 pm by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) King, How Different is Death, Jury Sentencing in Capital and Non-Capital Cases Compared, 2 Ohio St. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 1:46 pm by Kent Scheidegger
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 597-598, n. 4 (2002) very explicitly confines its jury trial holding to the eligibility decision, i.e., the finding of at least one aggravating circumstance, and not to the weighing or the ultimate penalty decision.Did the Supreme Court in Hurst v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 12:21 pm by John Elwood
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). [read post]
11 Sep 2006, 12:17 pm
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), which applied Apprendi in holding that a jury, and not a judge, must find the existence of aggravating circumstances that warrant the death penalty. [read post]
30 Nov 2008, 4:24 pm
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). [read post]