Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) United States v. James Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fifth Amendment 's Grand Jury Clause is not violated if a federal defendant is found guilty by a trial jury without having found "all" parts of an indictment proved. This case partly overruled Ex parte ...
The United States District Court for the District of Louisiana was established on April 8, 1812, by 2 Stat. 701, [3][4] several weeks before Louisiana was formally admitted as a state of the union. The District was thereafter subdivided and reformed several times. It was first subdivided into Eastern and Western Districts on March 3, 1823, by 3 ...
U.S. Const. amend. Haynes v. United States (390 U.S. 85) Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution 's self-incrimination clause. [1] Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States. [2][3]
Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Decisions of the United States Supreme Court on Federal Criminal Procedure, 20 Neb. L. Rev. 251 (1941). Lester B. Orfield, A Resume of Supreme Court Decisions on Federal Criminal Procedure, 14 Rocky Mntn. L. Rev. 105 (1941).
Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are "separate sovereigns".
Inocencio Muniz. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 US 582 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Self-incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment and the meaning of “testimonial” under the 5th Amendment. A drunk-driving suspect, Muniz, made several incriminating statements while in police custody, and the Supreme Court held that only one ...
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not entitle a defendant in a criminal trial to refuse to provide details of his alibi witnesses to the prosecution, and that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to have 12 members.
The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be ...