Search for: "Pennsylvania v. Muniz" Results 1 - 20 of 22
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2017, 7:37 am by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
Muniz held that 1) SORNA’s registration provisions constitute punishment notwithstanding the General Assembly’s identification of the provisions as nonpunitive; 2) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions violates the federal ex post facto clause; and 3) retroactive application of SORNA’s registration provisions also violates the ex post facto clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 6:01 am
“you have the right to remain silent…” Pennsylvania v. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 4:20 am
This exception was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 9:37 am by David Post
Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971); probation hearings, U.S. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2013, 4:09 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The Court of Appeals in People v Muniz established that, as a general rule, this inquiry is limited to a comparison of the crimes' elements as they are respectively defined in the foreign and Ne [read post]