Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Sentencing : From 10/01/01 To 07/01/02
Number of summaries found: 6
Search For More Summaries
| 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: | 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. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | ALABAMA v. SHELTON |
| Date: | 05/20/02 |
| Case Number: | 00-1214 |
| Summary: | A suspended sentence which may result in deprivation of liberty may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded the assistance of counsel in the prosecution for the crime charged. |