Search for: "In re Winship" Results 1 - 20 of 50
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2011, 11:41 am by johntfloyd
Another Tool for Preventing Wrongful Convictions: Texas Needs a Statutory Definition of Reasonable Doubt By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair Four decades ago in the case of In re Winship the United States Supreme Court firmly established that, as a matter of due process, a person charged with a criminal offense, including a juvenile as in Winship, can be found guilty only after the prosecution has proven every element of the crime… [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 11:29 am
This month we're excited to welcome to Prawfs for the first time Verity Winship, a VAP at Cardozo who teaches civ pro and corporations, and is the author of the forthcoming article, tentatively titled, Fair Funds and the Compensation Conundrum. [read post]
8 May 2013, 9:00 am by WSLL
Winship of Winship and Winship, P.C., Casper, WY. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 6:19 pm
  The first issue was whether "the trial judge's instruction to the jury that the prosecution 'does not have the burden of proving that no one else may have committed the murder' [was] an error that was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent as stated in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 2:46 am by Rumpole
I view the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case as bottomed on a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.In Re: Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 327 (1970),  J. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 6:14 pm by Dan Markel
Our current list of attendees and/or presenters include: Mike Cahill, Miriam Baer, Nelson Tebbe, Verity Winship, Bill Araiza, Katy Kuh, Hillel Levin, Howard Wasserman, Giovanna Shay, Chris Lund, and Marc Blitz (and me). [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 11:19 am by Jamison Koehler
Washington (right to confrontation), and In Re Winship (burden of proof for criminal conviction).  [read post]
29 Apr 2014, 12:06 pm by Jon Sands
New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). [read post]
20 Jan 2007, 1:55 pm
Only problem - it is based on a false premise: Chris [Bowers] and others didn't come to grips with Scott [Winship]'s underlying argument about the anti-Clinton worldview of the Netroots Left. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 4:56 pm by Dan Markel
We had ten very interesting early works in progress to discuss by (in no order) Chris Lund, Verity Winship, Howard Wasserman, Mike Cahill, Bill Araiza, Giovanna Shay, Marc Blitz, myself, Hillel Levin, and Katy Kuh. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 4:46 pm
As Justice Brennan said in In Re Winship: The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has this vital role in our criminal procedure for cogent reasons. [read post]
9 Aug 2007, 12:39 am
The court also cited In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368 (1970), in observing that the safeguards that are required for juvenile offenses-the right to notice, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the privilege against self-incrimination, and proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt-"are more than sufficient to ensure the reliability that Apprendi requires. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 1:53 pm by Jon Sands
(His pro se filings in state court cited neither In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), nor Jackson.) [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 7:46 pm
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 372, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1077, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 6:41 pm by Michael Ausbrook
That is, from my particular corn field, Blakely looks a lot like In re Winship for sentencing facts. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 8:05 am
Happy August and if you're Canadian, Happy Family Day! [read post]