Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a Texas statute criminalizing public intoxication did not violate the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The 5–4 decision's plurality opinion was by Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the process of determining whether a criminal defendant's confession was voluntary or coerced. The case was argued on December 9 and 10, 1963, and decided on June 22, 1964.
The Court also drew a distinction between "mental status," at issue in Buchanan, and "mental disease or defect," a provision of Kansas law which does not include voluntary intoxication, calling the former a broader term than the latter. Kansas' usage of the court-ordered exam to rebut the voluntary-intoxication defense is not prohibited by the ...
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that local government ordinances with civil and criminal penalties for camping on public land do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of homeless people. [1]
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.
Birchfield was a consolidation of three cases: Birchfield v.North Dakota, Bernard v.Minnesota, and Beylund v.Levi.Birchfield was charged with violation of a North Dakota statute for refusing to submit to blood alcohol content testing; Bernard was charged with a violation of a Minnesota statute for refusing to submit to breath alcohol testing; Beylund underwent a blood alcohol test consistent ...
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]