When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Shafer v. South Carolina - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafer_v._South_Carolina

    In 1994, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Simmons v.South Carolina.The U.S. Supreme Court held in this case that where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process requires that the jury be informed of the defendant's parole ineligibility.

  3. Roper v. Simmons - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

    The decision overturned the laws of 19 states that permitted 16 and 17 year olds to be executed. [27] The impact of this ruling was immediately felt in the State of Virginia, where Lee Boyd Malvo became no longer eligible for the death penalty for his role in the Beltway sniper attacks in October 2002. At the time of the attacks, Malvo was 17 ...

  4. List of United States Supreme Court opinions involving ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (1987) – Mandatory death penalty for a prison inmate who is convicted of murder while serving a life sentence without possibility of parole is unconstitutional. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) – The death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape and other non-homicidal crimes against the person.

  5. Massachusetts high court rules younger adults cannot be ...

    www.aol.com/news/massachusetts-high-court-rules...

    The highest court in Massachusetts ruled Thursday to raise from 18 to 21 the minimum age at which a person can be sentenced to mandatory life without parole — a narrow 4-3 ruling that juvenile ...

  6. Simmons v. South Carolina - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons_v._South_Carolina

    Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that, where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.

  7. R v Bissonnette - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Bissonnette

    The Court agreed with the trial judge that the provision was unconstitutional, but held that reading in discretion was too intrusive of a remedy and that he should have instead struck the provision down. It in turn reduced Bissonnette's sentence to one of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. [3]: paras 20 & 24

  8. A Kentucky lawmaker pushes to limit pardon powers in response ...

    www.aol.com/news/kentucky-lawmaker-pushes-limit...

    A Republican lawmaker resumed his push Wednesday to limit a Kentucky governor's pardon powers, a fallout from the flurry of pardons granted by the state's last GOP governor that still spark outrage.

  9. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenholtz_v._Inmates_of...

    Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when state law requires the state to grant parole whenever a prisoner satisfies certain conditions, due process requires the state to allow the prisoner to present evidence in support of his request for parole and to furnish a written ...