Sentencing Law and Policy has a great post on clemency - So why is Obama "... already among the slowest presidents to tend to this constitutional duty?" [Personally, I think he's busy, though not so busy as to justify neglecting clemency]
"President Obama is about to begin his third month in office still without having made any use (or any mention) of his clemency powers. As I spotlighted in a post here a few weeks ago, P.S. Ruckman in this post has documented that the new guy "is already among the slowest presidents to tend to this constitutional duty." As Ruckman has noted, the vast majority of Presidents have used their clemency power within their first month in office..." [more]
2.10.2009
california prison system must reduce overcrowding ...
New York Times - Court Orders California to Cut Prison Population By SOLOMON MOORE (Published: February 9, 2009) -
The California prison system must reduce overcrowding by as many as 55,000 inmates within three years to provide a constitutional level of medical and mental health care, a federal three-judge panel tentatively ruled Monday.
Relying on expert testimony, the court ruled that the California prison system, the nation’s largest with more than 150,000 inmates, could reduce its population by shortening sentences, diverting nonviolent felons to county programs, giving inmates good behavior credits toward early release, and reforming parole, which they said would have no adverse impact on public safety. The panel said that without such a plan, conditions would continue to deteriorate and inmates might regularly die of suicide or lack of proper care.
“The evidence is compelling that there is no relief other than a prisoner-release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions,” the panel said in its tentative ruling.
The California attorney general, Jerry Brown, vowed to appeal the ruling.
“This order, the latest intrusion by the federal judiciary into California’s prison system, is a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.
“The court’s tentative ruling is not constitutionally justified,” he said. “Therefore, the state will appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court when the final order is issued.”
The court supported its argument by citing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own support for prison reforms, which he has said would reduce the population by about 40,000 inmates.
“We cannot believe that such support would exist if the adoption of such measures would adversely affect public safety,” the court ruled.
The panel, which is composed of a federal appeals judge for the Ninth Circuit and two federal district judges, estimated the state could save $803 million to $906 million annually if it were to reduce its prison population. It also said it could use that money to shore up local agencies that would serve parolees or probationers diverted from prison.
The ruling left the door open for still more negotiations between the thousands of imprisoned plaintiffs and the state in the court proceedings, part of a series of class-action lawsuits accusing the state of failing to provide adequate health care to prisoners.
Federal judges have already ruled that the state’s failure to provide medical and mental health care is killing at least one inmate every month and has subjected inmates to cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
In their ruling on Monday, the judges ruled that reducing overcrowding was the only way to reform the prison health care system and encouraged plaintiffs’ and state lawyers to negotiate a way to cut the prison population. The judges also indicated that they would mandate a prison population cap of about 120 percent to 145 percent of the state’s designed capacity.
The judges have been reluctant to order specific reforms, however, and several times during final arguments they asked lawyers for the state what their plans were to reduce the prison population and whether the court had the authority to impose specific remedies.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Don Specter, said the judges, all of whom are known for their liberal rulings, may be reluctant to give specific reforms to the state, preferring the state arrive at its own reduction plan, because the judges’ decision might otherwise be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, which would hear any appeal.
One judge on the panel, Thelton E. Henderson, already appointed a federal receiver to take over the prison health care system. The receivership, which has demanded billions of dollars for new medical facilities, has repeatedly clashed with the strapped state, which recently demanded the dissolution of the court-appointed office.
The California prison system has doubled its design capacity, and some facilities are even more packed than that. Prison gymnasiums and classrooms are packed with three-tier prisoners’ bunks, and lines for prison health clinics often snake 50 men deep. Rehabilitation programs, recreational facilities and health care facilities are all compromised by the crowds of felons.
Lawyers for the prisoners said that despite California’s exceptionally poor conditions, the ruling could have a national impact on prison reform if other inmate lawsuits seek population caps on other overcrowded facilities.
The ruling is also an important success for inmates since the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which made it harder for prisoners to bring lawsuits and limited court remedies for allegations of prison abuse.
2.02.2009
goodbye exclusionary rule?
Justices Step Closer to Repeal of Evidence Rule ... NEW YORK TIMES (BY Adam Liptak) - In 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House was hard at work on what he called in a memorandum “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” — the principle that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.
The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States.
This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk....
The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States.
This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk....
1.28.2009
innocence project @ scotus
"In March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in an Innocence Project case seeking DNA testing for a client in Alaska who was convicted of rape and attempted murder 15 years ago.
The Innocence Project filed its brief with the Supreme Court this week, arguing that the U.S. Constitution allows prisoners access to DNA testing that could prove their innocence. In the vast majority of cases, prisoners are granted DNA testing under state law or because prosecutors consent to DNA testing without a court order — but Alaska is the exception. It is one of only six states without a law granting access to DNA testing, and it is the only state in the nation with no known cases of prisoners receiving DNA testing, either through a court order or a prosecutor’s consent.
Suing in federal court is the only option for Innocence Project client William Osborne to get the DNA testing he says will prove his innocence. Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that Osborne had the right to testing, but the state of Alaska appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld will argue the case on March 2."
The Innocence Project filed its brief with the Supreme Court this week, arguing that the U.S. Constitution allows prisoners access to DNA testing that could prove their innocence. In the vast majority of cases, prisoners are granted DNA testing under state law or because prosecutors consent to DNA testing without a court order — but Alaska is the exception. It is one of only six states without a law granting access to DNA testing, and it is the only state in the nation with no known cases of prisoners receiving DNA testing, either through a court order or a prosecutor’s consent.
Suing in federal court is the only option for Innocence Project client William Osborne to get the DNA testing he says will prove his innocence. Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that Osborne had the right to testing, but the state of Alaska appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld will argue the case on March 2."
"corrections funds vanish in madoff scandal"
Stateline.org Where Policy & POlitics Click - Corrections funds vanish in Madoff scandal [By John Gramlich, Stateline.org Staff Writer. (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)
The $50 billion Ponzi scheme that Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff is accused of orchestrating has stunned many state corrections officials — and not simply because of the magnitude of the alleged crime.
Among the funds lost in the scandal, it has emerged, were millions of dollars earmarked for corrections-related projects in the states, ranging from post-conviction DNA testing for inmates in Texas to housing assistance for ex-convicts in Kansas.
The money belonged to the JEHT Foundation, a New York-based charity that has provided tens of millions of dollars in grants to state and local governments, nonprofit organizations and other groups working for progressive corrections reforms.
The 9-year-old foundation, whose name stands for Justice, Equality, Human dignity and Tolerance, invested heavily with Madoff, and will shut its doors at the end of the month, its chief executive announced in a brief statement posted on the charity’s Web site.
Madoff was arrested by federal authorities in December amid allegations he carried out the largest individual financial fraud in history. The former money manager is accused of paying off existing investors with funds collected from new ones, rather than with actual returns.
The foundation’s sudden collapse has rocked the criminal justice reform community, from those advocating for looser criminal sentencing laws to those promoting expanded opportunities for inmates who have already served their time.
The $50 billion Ponzi scheme that Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff is accused of orchestrating has stunned many state corrections officials — and not simply because of the magnitude of the alleged crime.
Among the funds lost in the scandal, it has emerged, were millions of dollars earmarked for corrections-related projects in the states, ranging from post-conviction DNA testing for inmates in Texas to housing assistance for ex-convicts in Kansas.
The money belonged to the JEHT Foundation, a New York-based charity that has provided tens of millions of dollars in grants to state and local governments, nonprofit organizations and other groups working for progressive corrections reforms.
The 9-year-old foundation, whose name stands for Justice, Equality, Human dignity and Tolerance, invested heavily with Madoff, and will shut its doors at the end of the month, its chief executive announced in a brief statement posted on the charity’s Web site.
Madoff was arrested by federal authorities in December amid allegations he carried out the largest individual financial fraud in history. The former money manager is accused of paying off existing investors with funds collected from new ones, rather than with actual returns.
The foundation’s sudden collapse has rocked the criminal justice reform community, from those advocating for looser criminal sentencing laws to those promoting expanded opportunities for inmates who have already served their time.
california prison health care in the news
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown will ask U.S. to end oversight of California prisons: Officials say receivership has become a government unto itself. Overseer says such action would prolong unnecessary deaths and suffering among inmates [By Michael Rothfeld (Los Angeles Times. January 28, 2009)]
1.27.2009
grisham on the prison industrial complex
A Law Blog Q&A with John Grisham (WSJBlog posted January 27, 2009) " ... We have 2.5 million people in prison in this country. We’re not thinking. We’re warehousing these young black kids, we grind them through the mill for minor drug charges – or even, you know, more serious drug charges – and we spend $40,000 a year to incarcerate them. But we spend only $8,000 a year to educate them. We’re not using our heads. It’s costing a fortune and nobody’s talking about it..."
"prison spending increased 127% from 1987 to 2007"
Strapped States Eye Prison Savings [Stateline.org. Jan. 26, 2009] ~ "Nationally, corrections trails only health care, education and transportation in consuming state dollars. Prison spending increased 127 percent from 1987 to 2007 [emphasis added], and at least five states — Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Oregon and Vermont — now spend as much or more on corrections as they do on higher education, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers and the Public Safety Performance Project..."
supreme court cecisions (pdfs)
Source: U.S. Supreme Court - + Nelson v. U.S. (sentencing guidelines) + Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (habeas corpus) + Arizona v. Johnson (search and seizure) + U.S. v. Eurodif S.A. (trade and tariffs) + Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) + Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn. (sexual harassment)
top 300 repositories
open access news ~ ranking the top 300 oa repositories: University of California eScholarship Repository is ranked 39th globally.
the search for obama's crime policy ...
Huffington Post. President Obama It's now safe to talk about Civil Rights [By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Political Analyst and Social Issues Commentator] -- "... Obama pledged to take swift action on hate crimes, voting rights, employment discrimination, and the repressive drug laws on his campaign website [emphasis added]. Yet they never got off the campaign website and were virtually non existent as campaign talking points..."
1.22.2009
what would china do to bernie madoff?
Cancelled luxury auto leases in the U.S. -- "Irving Picard, the trustee in the Madoff case, has asked a federal judge to cancel leases the firm had on six luxury cars, including three Mercedes and a Range Rover. Picard wrote that the vehicles “are of no use or value to the creditors” of the firm and he wanted to cancel the leases to minimize the costs of administration in this case...."
But in China, see prior post ...
i drink milk [teen idles]
China court sentences 2 to death over tainted milk scandal -- from JURIST by Christian Ehret [JURIST] A Chinese court on Thursday sentenced two people to death and several to life imprisonment for their involvement in the melamine-tainted milk scandal [JURIST news archive] that sickened almost 300,000 children and killed at least six. Chairwoman of the now-bankrupt [NYT report] Sanlu Group [Research and Markets profile] Tian Wenhua pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in December and received
1.13.2009
preliminary semiannual uniform crime report
CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES - Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report (01.08 to 06.08): Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 3.5 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first six months of 2008 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2007. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2008 decreased 2.5 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2007. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2008 indicate that arson decreased 5.6 percent in 2008 when compared to 2007 figures. Available @ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2008prelim/
1.12.2009
[un]speedy
CRIMPROF BLOG - Speedy Trial Case Before Supreme Court This Week
After he was charged with hitting his girlfriend in the face, career criminal Michael Brillon sat in jail without bail for nearly three years, going through six public defenders before being tried for assault.
The delays paid off -- for Brillon, anyway: A Vermont court threw out his conviction and freed him from prison last spring, saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case, trying to decide whether delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal defendant of that right. In particular: Whether governments can be blamed for such delays because they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.
Forty states and 15 organizations -- state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim's rights' group -- are backing the Vermont prosecutor's appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands, criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did.
"You're greasing that slippery slope," said David Parkhurst, an attorney with the National Governors Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the prosecutor's appeal. "That's the big concern here."
Brillon, a 46-year-old construction worker whose criminal past includes convictions for sexual assault on a minor, felony obstruction of justice and cocaine possession, was charged with aggravated domestic assault over the 2001 incident with his girlfriend, who is the mother of his child.
Held without bail, his case inched along as lawyer after lawyer asked for postponements and eventually withdrew or were replaced at Brillon's request. [See also, Law Blog WSJ.com post]
After he was charged with hitting his girlfriend in the face, career criminal Michael Brillon sat in jail without bail for nearly three years, going through six public defenders before being tried for assault.
The delays paid off -- for Brillon, anyway: A Vermont court threw out his conviction and freed him from prison last spring, saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case, trying to decide whether delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal defendant of that right. In particular: Whether governments can be blamed for such delays because they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.
Forty states and 15 organizations -- state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim's rights' group -- are backing the Vermont prosecutor's appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands, criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did.
"You're greasing that slippery slope," said David Parkhurst, an attorney with the National Governors Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the prosecutor's appeal. "That's the big concern here."
Brillon, a 46-year-old construction worker whose criminal past includes convictions for sexual assault on a minor, felony obstruction of justice and cocaine possession, was charged with aggravated domestic assault over the 2001 incident with his girlfriend, who is the mother of his child.
Held without bail, his case inched along as lawyer after lawyer asked for postponements and eventually withdrew or were replaced at Brillon's request. [See also, Law Blog WSJ.com post]
1.09.2009
1.07.2009
cls reated web sites
- American Correctional Association (ACA)
- Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS)
- American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS)
- American Bar Association (ABA) - Criminal Justice Section
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
- American Society of Criminology (ASC)
- Amnesty International (AI)
- British Society of Criminology (BSC)
- Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
- Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
- Corrections.com (Corrections Connection Network)
- CrimeReports.com
- Criminal Justice Links (Florida State University)
- CrimProf Blog
- Department of Homeland Security
- Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
- Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP)
- Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center (FJRSC)
- Hieros Gamos Criminal Links
- Human Rights Watch (HRW)
- Infobase of State Activities and Research (ISAR)
- Interpol
- Just Detention International
- National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
- National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA)
- National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
- National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Abstracts Database
- National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
- National Rifle Association (NRA)
- National Youth Gang Center
- Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice (OJP)
- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
- Rand Organization
- Sentencing Law and Policy blog
- Social Statistics Briefing Room (White House)
- Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics
- Statistical Abstract of the United States
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
- Uniform Crime Report (FBI)
- United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (ODCCP)
- United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
- U.S. Secret Service
1.05.2009
12.19.2008
courts
FindLaw - State Resources
A key free legal research portal. FindLaw is a Thomson Reuters business (Westlaw).
LII / Legal Information Institute (Cornell U Law School) - Listing by Jurisdiction
LII is the best legal research portal online.
NSCS State Court Structure Charts
Presented with an interactive map of the United States - Click on the state of interest and a current court structure chart appears.
National Center for State Courts (NCSC) State Court Web Sites
Povides judicial branch links for each state, focusing on the administrative office of the courts, the court of last resort, any intermediate appellate courts, and each trial court level.
Washlaw Web (A Free Service of Washburn U School of Law)
Washlaw's simple design creates easy access to state court information.
Comparing Federal and State Court Systems
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments...
FindLaw > Federal Resources > Judicial Branch
Free legal research portal links to all significant federal court sites.
Federal Law Materials - Judicial Opinions [LII / Legal Information Institute]
Linking to decisions of U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts, and U.S. Courts of Special Jurisdiction.
LII / Legal Information Institute (Cornell U Law School) - Federal Law Collection
Federal Law Materials - Judicial Opinions from all U.S. Courts.
Understanding the Federal Courts (Administrative Office of the United States Courts)
This publication was developed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to provide an introduction to the federal judicial system, its organization and administration, and its relationship to the legislative and executive branches ...
U.S. Courts (Interactive Map)
Interactive map links to federal courts.
U.S. Courts (Official)
Federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by it.
A key free legal research portal. FindLaw is a Thomson Reuters business (Westlaw).
LII / Legal Information Institute (Cornell U Law School) - Listing by Jurisdiction
LII is the best legal research portal online.
NSCS State Court Structure Charts
Presented with an interactive map of the United States - Click on the state of interest and a current court structure chart appears.
National Center for State Courts (NCSC) State Court Web Sites
Povides judicial branch links for each state, focusing on the administrative office of the courts, the court of last resort, any intermediate appellate courts, and each trial court level.
Washlaw Web (A Free Service of Washburn U School of Law)
Washlaw's simple design creates easy access to state court information.
Comparing Federal and State Court Systems
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments...
FindLaw > Federal Resources > Judicial Branch
Free legal research portal links to all significant federal court sites.
Federal Law Materials - Judicial Opinions [LII / Legal Information Institute]
Linking to decisions of U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts, and U.S. Courts of Special Jurisdiction.
LII / Legal Information Institute (Cornell U Law School) - Federal Law Collection
Federal Law Materials - Judicial Opinions from all U.S. Courts.
Understanding the Federal Courts (Administrative Office of the United States Courts)
This publication was developed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to provide an introduction to the federal judicial system, its organization and administration, and its relationship to the legislative and executive branches ...
U.S. Courts (Interactive Map)
Interactive map links to federal courts.
U.S. Courts (Official)
Federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by it.
american indian legal resources
American Indian Legal Resources
•
American Indian Legal Resources (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
•
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). U.S. Department of the Interior
•
Codes, Tribal
•
Constitutions, Tribal
•
Early Indian Treaties ( University of Nebraska - Lincoln E-Text Center)
•
FindLaw – Indian and Native Peoples Law
•
FirstGov - Tribal Governments
•
Handbook of Federal Indian Law [Felix S. Cohen, 1941]
•
Indian Country Today
•
Indian Land Cessions 1784-1894. United States Serial Set number 4015
•
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
•
Indian Law Bulletin [National Indian Law Library]
•
Indian Law Resource Center
•
International Indian Treaty Council
•
Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties
•
Law Library of Congress, Indians of North America
•
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
•
National Indian Gaming Association
•
National Indian Gaming Commission
•
National Tribal Justice Resource Center
•
Native American Constitution and Law Digitization Project
•
Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
•
Tribal Court Clearinghouse
•
Tribal Law Gateway, National Indian Law Library (NARF)
•
U.S. Census Bureau. American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Data and Links
•
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
•
Wex – American Indian Law. LII / Legal Information Institute
•
American Indian Legal Resources (University of Oklahoma College of Law)
•
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). U.S. Department of the Interior
•
Codes, Tribal
•
Constitutions, Tribal
•
Early Indian Treaties ( University of Nebraska - Lincoln E-Text Center)
•
FindLaw – Indian and Native Peoples Law
•
FirstGov - Tribal Governments
•
Handbook of Federal Indian Law [Felix S. Cohen, 1941]
•
Indian Country Today
•
Indian Land Cessions 1784-1894. United States Serial Set number 4015
•
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
•
Indian Law Bulletin [National Indian Law Library]
•
Indian Law Resource Center
•
International Indian Treaty Council
•
Kappler’s Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties
•
Law Library of Congress, Indians of North America
•
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
•
National Indian Gaming Association
•
National Indian Gaming Commission
•
National Tribal Justice Resource Center
•
Native American Constitution and Law Digitization Project
•
Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
•
Tribal Court Clearinghouse
•
Tribal Law Gateway, National Indian Law Library (NARF)
•
U.S. Census Bureau. American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Data and Links
•
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
•
Wex – American Indian Law. LII / Legal Information Institute
open access articles
ARTICLES
Accueil de Persée
CDL: eScholarship
Current Law Journal Content
Directory of open access journals
Google Scholar
NCJRS Library/Abstracts
NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
PubMed
PubMed Central Homepage
ResearchNow
Scirus - for scientific information
Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
Accueil de Persée
CDL: eScholarship
Current Law Journal Content
Directory of open access journals
Google Scholar
NCJRS Library/Abstracts
NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
PubMed
PubMed Central Homepage
ResearchNow
Scirus - for scientific information
Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
capital punishment casebook
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CASEBOOK
ABDUR'RAHMAN V. BELL, 537 U.S. 101 (2002) ADAMS V. TEX., 448 U.S. 38 (1980) ALA. V. SHELTON, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) APPRENDI V. N.J., 530 U.S. 466 (2000) ARAVE V. CREECH, 507 U.S. 463 (1993) ARIZ. V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) ATKINS V. VA., 536 U.S. 304 (2002) AYERS v. BELMONTES (SCT - 05-493) (11.13.2006) BAGLEY, U.S. V., 473 U.S. 667 (1985) BANKS V. DRETKE, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) BARCLAY V. FLA., 463 U.S. 939 (1983) BAREFOOT V. ESTELLE, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) BATSON V. KY., 476 U.S. 79 (1986) BAZE V. REES (No. 07-5439) BELL V. CONE, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) BOOTH V. MD., 482 U.S. 496 (1987) BRADY v. MD., 373 U.S. 83 (1963) BULLINGTON V. MO., 451 U.S. 430 (1981) BURDINE V. JOHNSON, 262 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2001) CABANA V. BULLOCK, 474 U.S. 376 (1986) CAL. V. RAMOS, 463 U.S. 992 (1983) CALDWELL v. MISS., 472 U.S. 320 (1985) CALLINS V. COLLINS, 510 U.S. 1141 (1994) CAREY V. MUSLADIN (SCT - 05-493)(12.11.2006) CHAPMAN V. CAL., 386 U.S. 18 (1967) CLEMONS V. MISS., 494 U.S. 738 (1990) COKER V. GA., 433 U.S. 584 (1977) COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) DARDEN V. WAINWRIGHT, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) DOBBS V. ZANT, 506 U.S. 357 (1993) DUSKY V. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960) EDDINGS V. OKLA., 455 U.S. 104 (1982) ENMUND V. FLA., 458 US 782 (1982) EX PARTE MEDELLIN (TEX.CRIM.APP)(11.15.2006) FORD V. WAINWRIGHT, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) FURMAN V. GA., 408 U.S. 238 (1972) GARDNER V. FLA., 430 U.S. 349 (1977) GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) GODFREY V. GA., 446 U.S. 420 (1980) GODINEZ V. MORAN, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) GRAY V. MISS., 481 U.S. 648 (1987) GREGG V. GA., 428 U.S. 153 (1976) HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) HILL V. MCDONOUGH, 547 U.S. ___ (2006) JACOBS V. SCOTT, 513 U.S. 1067 (1995) JUREK V. TEX., 428 U.S. 262 (1976) KAN. V. MARSH, 126 S.Ct. 2516, 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (No. 04-1170)(2006) KELLY V. S.C., 534 U.S. 246 (2002) KEMMLER, IN RE, 136 U.S. 436 (1890) KENNEDY V LOUISIANA (07–343) (June 25, 2008) KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) LACKEY V. TEX., 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) LOCKETT V. OHIO, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) LOCKHART V. FRETWELL, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) LOCKHART V. MCCREE (1986) LOWENFIELD V. PHELPS, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) MAYNARD v. CARTWRIGHT, 486 U.S. 356 (1988) MCCLESKEY V. KEMP, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) MCCLESKEY V. ZANT, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) MCFARLAND V. SCOTT, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) MCGAUTHA V. CAL., 402 U.S. 183 (1971) MCKOY V. NORTH CAROLINA, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) MEDELLIN v. TEXAS (06-984) (March 28, 2008) MESSER v. KEMP, 474 U.S. 1088 (1986) MICKENS V. TAYLOR, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) MILLER-EL V. DRETKE, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) MINISTER OF JUSTICE V. BURNS, 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7 (2001) MORGAN V. ILL., 504 U.S. 719 (1992) MURRAY V. GIARRATANO, 492 U.S. 1 (1989) NELSON V. CAMPBELL, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) NORRIS V. ALA., 294 U.S. 587 (1935) OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN (No. 06-6407) (06.28.2007) PAYNE V. TENN., 501 U.S. 808 (1991) PENRY V. JOHNSON, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) PENRY V. LYNAUGH, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) POWELL V. ALA., 287 U.S. 45 (1932) PROFFITT V. FLA., 428 U.S. 242 (1976) PULLEY V. HARRIS, 465 U.S. 37 (1984) RHINES V. WEBER, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) RING V. ARIZ., 536 U.S. 584 (2002) ROBERTS V. LA., 428 U.S. 325 (1976) ROBINSON V. CAL., 370 U.S. 660 (1962) ROPER V. SIMMONS, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) S.C. V. GATHERS, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) SHAFER V. S.C., 532 U.S. 36 (2001) SIMMONS V. S.C., 512 U.S. 154 (1994) SKIPPER V. S.C., 476 U.S. 1 (1986) SMITH V. TEX., 543 U.S. 37 (2004) SNYDER v. LOUISIANA (06-10119)(March 19, 2008) SPAZIANO V. FLA., 468 U.S. 447 (1984) STANFORD V. KY., 492 U.S. 361 (1989) STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL STONE V. POWELL, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) STRICKLAND V. WASH., 466 U.S. 668 (1984) TEAGUE V. LANE, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) THOMPSON V. OKLA., 487 U.S. 815 (1988) TISON V. ARIZ., 481 U.S. 137 (1987) TROP V. DULLES, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) TUILAEPA V. CAL., 512 U.S. 967 (1994) TURNER V. MURRAY, 476 U.S. 28 (1986) UTTECHT v. BROWN (06-413) (06.04.2007) WALTON V. ARIZ., 497 U.S. 639 (1990) WEEKS V. ANGELONE, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) WEEMS V. U.S., 217 U.S. 349 (1910) WHITMORE V. ARK., 495 U.S. 149 (1990) WIGGINS V. SMITH, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) WILLIAMS V. NEW YORK , 337 U.S. 241 (1949) WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) WITHERSPOON V. ILL., 391 U.S. 510 (1968) WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) WOODSON v. N.C., 428 U.S. 280 (1976) ZANT V. STEPHENS, 462 U.S. 862 (1983)
ABDUR'RAHMAN V. BELL, 537 U.S. 101 (2002) ADAMS V. TEX., 448 U.S. 38 (1980) ALA. V. SHELTON, 535 U.S. 654 (2002) APPRENDI V. N.J., 530 U.S. 466 (2000) ARAVE V. CREECH, 507 U.S. 463 (1993) ARIZ. V. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) ATKINS V. VA., 536 U.S. 304 (2002) AYERS v. BELMONTES (SCT - 05-493) (11.13.2006) BAGLEY, U.S. V., 473 U.S. 667 (1985) BANKS V. DRETKE, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) BARCLAY V. FLA., 463 U.S. 939 (1983) BAREFOOT V. ESTELLE, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) BATSON V. KY., 476 U.S. 79 (1986) BAZE V. REES (No. 07-5439) BELL V. CONE, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) BOOTH V. MD., 482 U.S. 496 (1987) BRADY v. MD., 373 U.S. 83 (1963) BULLINGTON V. MO., 451 U.S. 430 (1981) BURDINE V. JOHNSON, 262 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2001) CABANA V. BULLOCK, 474 U.S. 376 (1986) CAL. V. RAMOS, 463 U.S. 992 (1983) CALDWELL v. MISS., 472 U.S. 320 (1985) CALLINS V. COLLINS, 510 U.S. 1141 (1994) CAREY V. MUSLADIN (SCT - 05-493)(12.11.2006) CHAPMAN V. CAL., 386 U.S. 18 (1967) CLEMONS V. MISS., 494 U.S. 738 (1990) COKER V. GA., 433 U.S. 584 (1977) COLEMAN V. THOMPSON, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) DARDEN V. WAINWRIGHT, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) DOBBS V. ZANT, 506 U.S. 357 (1993) DUSKY V. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960) EDDINGS V. OKLA., 455 U.S. 104 (1982) ENMUND V. FLA., 458 US 782 (1982) EX PARTE MEDELLIN (TEX.CRIM.APP)(11.15.2006) FORD V. WAINWRIGHT, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) FURMAN V. GA., 408 U.S. 238 (1972) GARDNER V. FLA., 430 U.S. 349 (1977) GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) GODFREY V. GA., 446 U.S. 420 (1980) GODINEZ V. MORAN, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) GRAY V. MISS., 481 U.S. 648 (1987) GREGG V. GA., 428 U.S. 153 (1976) HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) HILL V. MCDONOUGH, 547 U.S. ___ (2006) JACOBS V. SCOTT, 513 U.S. 1067 (1995) JUREK V. TEX., 428 U.S. 262 (1976) KAN. V. MARSH, 126 S.Ct. 2516, 165 L.Ed.2d 429 (No. 04-1170)(2006) KELLY V. S.C., 534 U.S. 246 (2002) KEMMLER, IN RE, 136 U.S. 436 (1890) KENNEDY V LOUISIANA (07–343) (June 25, 2008) KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) LACKEY V. TEX., 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) LOCKETT V. OHIO, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) LOCKHART V. FRETWELL, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) LOCKHART V. MCCREE (1986) LOWENFIELD V. PHELPS, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) MAYNARD v. CARTWRIGHT, 486 U.S. 356 (1988) MCCLESKEY V. KEMP, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) MCCLESKEY V. ZANT, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) MCFARLAND V. SCOTT, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) MCGAUTHA V. CAL., 402 U.S. 183 (1971) MCKOY V. NORTH CAROLINA, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) MEDELLIN v. TEXAS (06-984) (March 28, 2008) MESSER v. KEMP, 474 U.S. 1088 (1986) MICKENS V. TAYLOR, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) MILLER-EL V. DRETKE, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) MINISTER OF JUSTICE V. BURNS, 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7 (2001) MORGAN V. ILL., 504 U.S. 719 (1992) MURRAY V. GIARRATANO, 492 U.S. 1 (1989) NELSON V. CAMPBELL, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) NORRIS V. ALA., 294 U.S. 587 (1935) OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) O’SULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN (No. 06-6407) (06.28.2007) PAYNE V. TENN., 501 U.S. 808 (1991) PENRY V. JOHNSON, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) PENRY V. LYNAUGH, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) POWELL V. ALA., 287 U.S. 45 (1932) PROFFITT V. FLA., 428 U.S. 242 (1976) PULLEY V. HARRIS, 465 U.S. 37 (1984) RHINES V. WEBER, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) RING V. ARIZ., 536 U.S. 584 (2002) ROBERTS V. LA., 428 U.S. 325 (1976) ROBINSON V. CAL., 370 U.S. 660 (1962) ROPER V. SIMMONS, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) S.C. V. GATHERS, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) SHAFER V. S.C., 532 U.S. 36 (2001) SIMMONS V. S.C., 512 U.S. 154 (1994) SKIPPER V. S.C., 476 U.S. 1 (1986) SMITH V. TEX., 543 U.S. 37 (2004) SNYDER v. LOUISIANA (06-10119)(March 19, 2008) SPAZIANO V. FLA., 468 U.S. 447 (1984) STANFORD V. KY., 492 U.S. 361 (1989) STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL STONE V. POWELL, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) STRICKLAND V. WASH., 466 U.S. 668 (1984) TEAGUE V. LANE, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) THOMPSON V. OKLA., 487 U.S. 815 (1988) TISON V. ARIZ., 481 U.S. 137 (1987) TROP V. DULLES, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) TUILAEPA V. CAL., 512 U.S. 967 (1994) TURNER V. MURRAY, 476 U.S. 28 (1986) UTTECHT v. BROWN (06-413) (06.04.2007) WALTON V. ARIZ., 497 U.S. 639 (1990) WEEKS V. ANGELONE, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) WEEMS V. U.S., 217 U.S. 349 (1910) WHITMORE V. ARK., 495 U.S. 149 (1990) WIGGINS V. SMITH, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) WILLIAMS V. NEW YORK , 337 U.S. 241 (1949) WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) WITHERSPOON V. ILL., 391 U.S. 510 (1968) WITHROW V. WILLIAMS, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) WOODSON v. N.C., 428 U.S. 280 (1976) ZANT V. STEPHENS, 462 U.S. 862 (1983)
12.18.2008
wordle
ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Project ABA Moratorium ACLU : Death Penalty AI - Death Penalty AI : Abolitionist/Retentionist AMA : E-2.06 American Constitution Society : ACS Blog Amnesty International Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Bureau of Justice Statistics California Appellate Report Capital Defense Network Capital Defense Weekly CrimeReports.com Criminal Justice Journalists' News Center CrimProf Blog Death Penalty Links European Union and the Death Penalty (Capital Punishment) Eyewitness Identification Reform Blog FAMM Home Page Human Rights Magazine - ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities Human Rights Watch: United States: The Death Penalty Justice Policy Institute Justice Research and Statistics Association Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention LAPD Blog NAACP Legal Defense Fund National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law National Criminal Justice Reference Service National Institute of Justice Neuroethics & Law Blog Ninth Circuit Capital Punishment Handbook public criminology Real Cost of Prisons Weblog Reprieve SCOTUSblog ScotusWiki Sentencing Law and Policy Sentencing Project Southern Center for Human Rights Southern Poverty Law Center StandDown Texas Project TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime US Sentencing Commission Vera Institute of Justice Sentencing and Corrections Warhol, Electric Chair
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)