Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Death penalty

Journal

2004

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Courts Juries: Provide The State And The Accused With The Same Number Of Peremptory Challenges In Misdemeanor, Felony, And Death Penalty Cases And In Challenging Alternative Jurors; Provide The Manner In Which Peremptory Challenges Are Made; Change The Size Of The Jury Panel In Felony And Death Penalty Cases; Provide The State With An Equal Number Of Additional Peremptory Challenges In Trials For Jointly Indicted Defendants; Provide An Exemption From Jury Duty For A Primary Caregiver Of A Child Who Is Four Years Of Age Or Younger; Provide An Exemption From Jury Duty For A Primary Teacher Of Children In A Home Study Program; And For Other Purposes, Jonathan Poole Sep 2004

Courts Juries: Provide The State And The Accused With The Same Number Of Peremptory Challenges In Misdemeanor, Felony, And Death Penalty Cases And In Challenging Alternative Jurors; Provide The Manner In Which Peremptory Challenges Are Made; Change The Size Of The Jury Panel In Felony And Death Penalty Cases; Provide The State With An Equal Number Of Additional Peremptory Challenges In Trials For Jointly Indicted Defendants; Provide An Exemption From Jury Duty For A Primary Caregiver Of A Child Who Is Four Years Of Age Or Younger; Provide An Exemption From Jury Duty For A Primary Teacher Of Children In A Home Study Program; And For Other Purposes, Jonathan Poole

Georgia State University Law Review

In 2004, the Georgia General Assembly considered a bill designed to exempt home-school teachers and certain primary caregivers from jury duty. The Senate amended the bill to provide the State and the accused with an equal number of preemptory challenges in death penalty, felony, and misdemeanor cases.

Go to article

Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman Jun 2004

Summerlin V. Stewart And Ring Retroactivity, Tonya G. Newman

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a trial before a jury. Until the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, however, nine states wholly or partially surrendered a portion of the jury's role to a sentencing judge. Specifically, those states allowed sentencing judges to make factual determinations regarding sentencing considerations by which capital defendants became eligible for the death penalty. The Ring Court halted the use of sentencing considerations to erode the jury's fundamental role in preserving accuracy and fairness of criminal proceedings, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury make factual findings on all elements, including sentencing …

Go to article

Sattazahn V. Pennsylvania: Double Jeopardy And The Definition Of "Acquittal" In Capital-Sentencing Proceedings, Matthew G. Howells Jan 2004

Sattazahn V. Pennsylvania: Double Jeopardy And The Definition Of "Acquittal" In Capital-Sentencing Proceedings, Matthew G. Howells

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Justice By Geography And Race: The Administration Of The Death Penalty In Maryland, 1978-1999, Raymond Paternoster, Robert Brame, Sarah Bacon, Andrew Ditchfield Jan 2004

Justice By Geography And Race: The Administration Of The Death Penalty In Maryland, 1978-1999, Raymond Paternoster, Robert Brame, Sarah Bacon, Andrew Ditchfield

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Go to article