Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case that provided for a hearing, before a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a parole board, to determine the factual basis for parole violations. This hearing is colloquially known as a "Morrissey hearing."
A relative of David Smith told The Post that he will be speaking to the parole board for the Nov. 20 hearing. Smith was a 22-year-old mom when she became a household name for killing her sons, 3 ...
Initially known as the United States Board of Parole, [2] the board had three members and was established by legislation on May 13, 1930 as an independent board. The first chairperson was Arthur DeLacy Wood. As a result of an order of the Attorney General, the Board began reporting directly to him in August 1945.
The proposed reforms could see ministers override the Parole Board when it comes to the release of dangerous criminals from jail. Skip to main content. News. 24/7 help. For premium support please ...
Texas’ parole board on Monday denied clemency for death row inmate Ramiro Gonzales, who is scheduled to be executed Wednesday for a 2001 murder, despite the fact a key expert witness no longer ...
Reginald McFadden (February 23, 1953 – March 6, 2023) was an American serial killer who committed a series of rapes and two murders in Rockland and Nassau counties, New York in 1994, which started only 92 days after his parole from a rape-murder committed as a juvenile in Pennsylvania.
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.