Was is the case Blakely v. Washington or Ford v. Wainwright that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed?
c85e1c7c66cc85e53351c714fe520bb6
Blakely v. Washington Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case (for good or ill) was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who "described the Court's decision as a 'Number 10 earthquake.'"
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.
dbb51489676976a16710e36d033337b1
Beard v. United States Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895), is a United States Supreme Court case in which self-defense in a homicide case was found not to require a duty to retreat.
c19a91b9e8ac6292beb8a5450dd8e200
Stump v. Sparkman Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.
632015cd386ab52ad212a728700e4080
Long v. State Long v. State, 44 Del. 262, 65 A.2d 489 (1949), is an American criminal law case in which the court rejected the principal that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", including in cases in which the defendant is acting on incorrect advice from her private attorney that an act is legal, when it is not.
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.
f268a0f05d6d08fa6489ba53317bcf7f
United States v. Lawrence United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. 42 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case determining that the Supreme Court cannot normally compel a federal trial judge to proceed in a case which he feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed. In the case, the court held:
f259df7e04f88eb767c797a621d62b5a
Aikens v. California Aikens v. California, 406 U.S. 813 (1972) , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court where a petitioner (in the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiff (Aikens) is called the "petitioner" and the defendant (the State of California) is called the "respondent") was appealing his conviction and death sentence. After oral argument had been made on the case, but before the court decided on it, the Supreme Court of California in "People v. Anderson", 6 Cal. 3d 628 (1972), declared the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution. This made his appeal unnecessary because the decision in "Anderson"
5a9ee17fdc78d4c9c1e88047a0e41917
Washington v. Glucksberg Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.
569fbb640d0cabeb7d021a70444b60ae
Superior Court of the District of Columbia The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, commonly referred to as DC Superior Court, is the trial court for the District of Columbia. It hears cases involving criminal and civil law, as well as family court, landlord and tenant, probate, tax, and driving violations (no permit and DUI). All appeals of Superior Court decisions go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (though magistrate judge opinions are first appealed to a Superior Court Associate Judge)
f7bdb8ea4f1e8d2f21983b326e35deb4
Criminal law in the Marshall Court The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are "United States v. Simms" (1803), "United States v. More" (1805), "Ex parte Bollman" (1807), "United States v. Hudson" (1812), "Cohens v. Virginia" (1821), "United States v. Perez" (1824), "Worcester v. Georgia" (1832), and "United States v. Wilson" (1833).
7586027c02e1faec5a8a4500371c91ee
Godfrey v. Georgia Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a death sentence could not be granted for a murder when the only aggravating factor was that the murder was found to be "outrageously or wantonly vile."
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.
e9f461176d89ebbd021f5ad3558f375b
Federal common law Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states. The United States is the only country to combine the creation of common law doctrines with a complete federalism, wherein the national supreme court has virtually no power to review state court decisions to determine whether the state courts have followed state laws. The High Court of Australia is sometimes said to have federal common law, but because all state and territorial courts are directly appealable to the High Court, this is indistinguishable from a general common law. In contrast, the United States Supreme Court has effectively barred the creation of federal common law in areas traditionally under the authority of state courts. Nevertheless, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern.
f5ebeccf7e0951dccd4e02fcf772be3f
Adderley v. Florida Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.
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.
2978654c276daf14978b120ea54582ca
Lambert v. Yellowley Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
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).
2bab2d247d03640412e5a67b5fb57f97
Clawson v. United States Clawson v. United States, 113 U.S. 143 (1885) , was a case regarding a Utah territorial statute which authorized an appeal by a defendant in a criminal action from a final judgment of conviction, which provides that an appeal shall stay execution upon filing with the clerk a certificate of a judge that in his opinion there is probable cause for the appeal, and further provides that after conviction, a defendant who has appealed may be admitted to bail as of right when the judgment is for the payment of a fine only, and as matter of discretion in other cases, does not confer upon a defendant convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned the right, after appeal and filing of certificate of probable cause, to be admitted to bail except within the discretion of the court.
c2ddabe8ea1ee031edd84b11bd409594
Ewing v. California Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) , is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in "Harmelin v. Michigan", 501 U.S. 957 (1991) , the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in "Ewing" and the companion case "Lockyer v. Andrade," 538 U.S. 63 (2003) , the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
b430fd596ad2f0738366be578d18136e
People v. Marsden People v. Marsden is a 1970 California Supreme Court decision that held it was error for the trial court to deny a defendant's motion to relieve his court-appointed counsel without holding a hearing to allow the defendant to explain his grounds. The trial court had denied the motion based on the trial judge's own observations of the proceedings and belief that the attorney was providing effective representation. Criminal defendants in the United States have the right to appointed counsel if they cannot afford to hire an attorney under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright.
9308cf0997546929dc7826bf533d7e20
R v Burgess R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 is a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that found sleepwalking as insane automatism. In a previous decision, Burgess was found not guilty by reason of insanity because his case fell under the M'Naghten Rules. Burgess appealed his previous verdict on the grounds he was not guilty due to automatism because he did not have the "mens rea" to make him guilty. However, the court ruled that sleepwalking was considered insane automatism and Burgess' appeal was denied.