Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a federal district court that rejected Louisiana's attempt to use interposition to protect its segregated schools. The district court found that interposition by the states is inconsistent with the Constitution, which gives the power to decide constitutional issues to the Supreme Court, not the states.
Accordingly, we find that the last two sentences of the trial court's nullification instructions were erroneous." [38] In 2020, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that handing out jury nullification brochures to prospective jurors outside a courthouse does not constitute jury tampering because the activity is not targeted at jurors for any ...
Sparf remains the last direct opinion of the Court on jury nullification. Justice Gray spoke for those dissenting, saying "It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for ...
The Supreme Court in 2006 issued a decision, R. v. Krieger, 2006 SCC 47, [35] which confirmed that juries in Canada have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. The decision stated that "juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law—but they do have the power to do so when ...
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, [1] overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The Court found that under the Constitution, federal courts have the ...
Senators polarized over meaning of Supreme Court ruling. The chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the decision “a game-changing act of judicial fiat that puts all future presidents above ...
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794), was an early United States Supreme Court case holding that debts sequestered but not declared forfeit by states during the American Revolution could be recovered by bondholders. [1] It is the only reported jury trial in the history of the Supreme Court. [2]