Search for: "Apprendi v. New Jersey"
Results 181 - 200
of 271
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2009, 3:29 am
In Apprendi v. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 1:58 am
New Jersey in 2000 SCOTUS issued a string of decisions saying, in essence, that judges can't make factual findings that increase sentences; only juries can do that. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 6:58 pm
In particular, Ball's take on the Supreme Court's work in Apprendi v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 8:55 am
New Jersey, Blakely v. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 2:59 pm
New Jersey, any fact that increases an offender's maximum punishment must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. [read post]
27 May 2009, 2:32 am
Fairley, which also features language addressing Apprendi v. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 2:42 pm
New Jersey... [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 4:50 am
New Jersey-a landmark decision that celebrates its tenth anniversary this year. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 2:22 pm
New Jersey -- a landmark decision that celebrates its tenth anniversary this year. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 6:23 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Crawford v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 9:38 am
New Jersey and sequels apply when a jury is asked to impose death, rather than life, as a sentence. [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 7:08 am
New Jersey, et al. (08-352). [read post]
9 Feb 2009, 9:00 pm
Thompson's best but unsuccessful shot on appeal was to argue that under Apprendi v. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 10:18 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Blakely v. [read post]
19 Jan 2009, 3:45 am
New Jersey and Blakely v. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 7:11 am
New Jersey in 2000 is limited to sentencing for single crimes, not to the arrangement for punishing multiple offenses. [read post]
10 Jan 2009, 1:17 pm
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000): "'[T]he indictment must allege whatever is in law essential to the punishment sought to be inflicted.' (quoting 1 J. [read post]
7 Jan 2009, 8:07 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).Read the opinion here. [read post]
2 Jan 2009, 12:42 am
But, whatever the cause, it is a great day for military justice that Apprendi v. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 10:25 pm
Supreme Court should have advised the jury that it could consider the evidence for the possession of stolen property counts, but that it could not consider the prior burglaries with respect to the attempted burglary and possession of burglar's tools counts.The Court also arguably acknowledged, sub silentio, that the viability ofthe persistent felony statute is uncertain (it declined to reach theissue), even though the Court of Appeals has consistently upheld thestatute against… [read post]
