Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case. [1] The Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society in this Texas death penalty case.
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. [1]
A Texas inmate whose attorneys say received a death sentence due to false and unscientific expert testimony faced execution Thursday evening for the fatal stabbing of a man during a robbery more ...
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally backs the death penalty but occasionally steps in when there has been a clear miscarriage of justice. Richard Glossip.
However, during appeals of Malcolm Rent Johnson's death penalty case, two forensic experts hired by the defense were critical of Gilchrist's testimony, particularly as it relied upon several "blue-colored hairs" that seemed too "ubiquitous" to be useful evidence. [12] Curtis McCarty was released in 2007 after spending nearly 20 years on death row.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on the use of capital punishment (the death penalty). While some rulings applied very narrowly, perhaps to only one individual, other cases have had great influence over wide areas of procedure, eligible crimes, acceptable evidence and method of execution.
A view of death row at California's San Quentin prison in March. Capital punishment has continued to become rarer in recent years, and public opinion of the practice keeps growing dimmer with time.
Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not grant criminal defendants facing the death penalty the right to introduce new evidence of their innocence during sentencing that was not introduced during trial.