Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the ...
Life without parole for adults. For juveniles, if mitigating factors exist the judge may set a minimum term of between 25 and 40 years before parole eligibility with a maximum term of at least 60 years and the same goes with aggravating factors. [24]
Aggravating factors must be found by a jury. [17] Aggravating factors cannot be vague. [18] The sentencing decision-maker must have the authority to consider all mitigating factors. [19] Fourth, the Clause requires certain additional procedural rules in capital cases. For example, the jury must be permitted to consider a lesser included offense ...
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) – A death sentence where the necessary aggravating factors are determined by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury, as the jury should determine if there are such factors sufficient to allow the death penalty. Hurst v.
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) Florida's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it requires the comparison of aggravating factors to mitigating factors in order to impose a death sentence. Jurek v.
A judge told the parents of 27-year-old Ellen Greenberg, a Philadelphia teacher found dead with 20 stab wounds in 2011, that the city's declaration of suicide was "puzzling."
This is because the tougher first-degree murder charge only applies to a narrow list of aggravating circumstances, including when the victim is a judge, a police officer or a first responder, or ...
New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term. There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term. Under the Apprendi rule, as explained in Blakely v.