Which case regarded juveniles as separate types of defendants, In re Gault or Ford v. Wainwright?
120c76a69ef1f6cdc9159a2e8e483738
In re Gault In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) , was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. The court's opinion was written by Justice Abe Fortas, a noted proponent of children's rights.
6578db4e27594f463e549ffd50993e71
Ford v. Wainwright Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.
d4da48f376339d94e8a0d21e4507b542
Rothgery v. Gillespie County Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a criminal defendant's initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Attachment does not also require that a prosecutor (as distinct from a police officer) be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
c98fa78e0b08ee84d9b29a6b09c979fd
Sullivan v. Zebley Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits. In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial parts of the Supplemental Security Income program's regulation on determining disability for children were inconsistent with the Social Security Act; particularly, the statutory standard of “comparable severity.” The suit highlighted what some felt was the need for a step in the evaluation of childhood disability claims that would be akin to the "functional" evaluation considered in many adult claims. It resulted in the addition of a consideration of functioning, and not merely medical severity, in children's SSI claims. The decision was rendered on February 20, 1990.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
689b42d9cc760dc64672ce0f7445ca70
Dickerson v. United States Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) , upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966).
1f33b543a538f217b68f657140ad724b
Youth Justice Court of the Northern Territory The Youth Justice Court of the Northern Territory is an Australian court which hears and determines cases concerning crimes committed by children under the age of 18 years in the Northern Territory.
ed5b41aa83a783b3e6fdf24d09ab56a0
Montgomery v. Louisiana Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in "Miller v. Alabama", 567 U.S. ___ (2012) , that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.
872e7f70ba88189878b384ba3d3e53a3
Spano v. New York Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in "Miranda v. Arizona". In "Spano", the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.
e96e68b5d272957aa4b191de1a66e151
Chavez v. Martinez Chavez v. Martinez was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officer does not deprive a suspect of constitutional rights by failing to issue a "Miranda" warning. However, the court held open the possibility that the right to substantive due process could be violated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts.
b5e07f8450a242df22aed3fdecb05128
Luis v. United States Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.
1790fe89cd02a8a7561dd29bb2fc2daf
Holmes v. Ford Holmes v. Ford was an American court case in the Oregon Territory that freed a slave family in the territory in 1853. The decision re-affirmed that slavery was illegal in the territory as outlined in the Organic Laws of Oregon that were continued once the region became a U.S. territory. In the decision, Chief Justice of the Oregon Territorial Supreme Court George H. Williams ruled against Nathaniel Ford, freeing the children of Polly and Robin Holmes.
635e0aa2ffc12c5a03b0570552220b95
Barrett v. United States Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.
fccb777d8abc7cb0313c626b241566d2
Ludwig v. Massachusetts Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 U.S. 600 (1976) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Massachusetts two-tier court system did not deprive Ludwig of his U.S. Const., Amend. XIV right to a jury trial and did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Const., Amend. V.
363ee1535aa948cfe69646cf283368c0
Wainwright v. Witt Wainwright vs. Witt, 470 U.S. 1039 (1985) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the "voir dire" process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.
221ca8787bddc2de673d3318696fa885
Ligenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co. Ligenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co., 15 S.W. 844 (1891), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Missouri that held that forgoing a suit for damages for lack of performance on a contract does not constitute consideration for a modification of that contract.
e1fb0ef3ad56c5d615ed295b8ceaa9ba
R v Stone R v Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of the defence of automatism in a criminal trial.
6933a9bf80ea684f5e1693281cb087c0
Scowby v Glendinning Scowby v Glendinning, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226 is a leading federalism decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Saskatchewan provincial Human Rights Act was found not to apply to potentially discriminatory conduct that was acted as part of criminal law enforcement.
a57c88e0d7be07837c4798f424b52d38
Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which he had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.
41879b18c01cd85bf74c4c41a50bd125
Georgia v. McCollum Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal "defendant" cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but didn't address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company" (1991) that the "Batson" prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process.
30c08f114a72e0f4fe48c4bd56621f4d
Lane v. Holder Lane v Holder (District case 1:1 lcv503, Appellate case 11-1847) is a civil lawsuit filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of plaintiff Michelle Lane, a resident of the District of Columbia, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Eric Holder, Attorney General for the United States, and W. Steven Flaherty, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police. The suit seeks to bar the Defendants from enforcing a provision of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits the purchase of firearms by a non-resident of the state in which the purchase is made, and from enforcing a Virginia State statute prohibiting the sale of handguns, outright, to any non-resident of the State. The case was dismissed by the District Court judge Gerald Bruce Lee. An appeal by Lane and the SAF is pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.