Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Criminal Law & Procedure : From 10/01/01 To 07/01/02
Number of summaries found: 20
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure |
| Title: | HOPE v. PELZER |
| Date: | 06/27/02 |
| Case Number: | 01-309 |
| Summary: | Corrections officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for acts of handcuffing an inmate to a hitching post, because a reasonable corrections officer would have known that such punishment was unlawful under the Eighth Amendment, based on the lack of any safety concern or emergency, and obvious cruelty inherent in such a practice. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | US v. RUIZ |
| Date: | 06/24/02 |
| Case Number: | 01-595 |
| Summary: | The Constitution does not require that the government disclose material impeachment evidence, or affirmative defense information, prior to entering a plea agreement with a defendant. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | RING v. ARIZONA |
| Date: | 06/24/02 |
| Case Number: | 01-488 |
| Summary: | The state of Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors which allow for imposition of the death penalty, amount to "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," which must be found by a jury under Apprendi, and may not be determined by a sentencing judge. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | HARRIS v. US |
| Date: | 06/24/02 |
| Case Number: | 00-10666 |
| Summary: | A violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A), for the use or carrying of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, is a single offense in which brandishing and discharging are sentencing factors to be found by the judge, not offense elements to be found by the jury. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure |
| Title: | ATKINS v. VIRGINIA |
| Date: | 06/20/02 |
| Case Number: | 00-8452 |
| Summary: | Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure |
| Title: | US v. DRAYTON |
| Date: | 06/17/02 |
| Case Number: | 01-631 |
| Summary: | The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | CAREY v. SAFFOLD |
| Date: | 06/17/02 |
| Case Number: | 01-301 |
| Summary: | A state prisoner's application for state collateral review is "pending", for purposes of tolling the one-year time period to seek federal habeas relief, during the time between a lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure |
| Title: | MCKUNE v. LILE |
| Date: | 06/10/02 |
| Case Number: | 00-1187 |
| Summary: | The Sexual Abuse Treatment Program serves the vital penological purpose of rehabilitation, and offering inmates minimal incentives to participate does not amount to compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | BELL v. CONE |
| Date: | 05/28/02 |
| Case Number: | 01-400 |
| Summary: | State court's finding, that defense counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence against imposition of the death penalty, and waiver of final argument did not amount to ineffective assistance, was neither "contrary to" nor an "unreasonable application" of federal law under the Strickland standard. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | US v. COTTON |
| Date: | 05/20/02 |
| Case Number: | 01-687 |
| Summary: | Omission from a federal indictment of a fact enhancing the statutory maximum sentence (here quantity of drugs) does not justify a court of appeals to vacate the enhanced sentence, even where defendant did not object in trial court; indictment defects do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case. |