 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Chambers v. United States, No. 06-11206,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A felon's prior conviction for failing to report for weekend confinement under 720 ILCS 5/31-6(a) (2008) was not a form of "escape from a penal institution" qualifying as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.S. ¿ 924(e), in sentencing, thus, an affirmance of his sentence was reversed.
|
|||||
| Jimenez v. Quarterman, No. 07-6984,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The lower court erred in denying a state inmate a certificate of appealability on a district court's dismissal of his federal habeas petition where, under the plain meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. ¿ 2244(d)(1)(A), the date that his out-of-time appeal became final was the controlling date for purposes of determining the timeliness of the petition.
|
|||||
| Herring v. United States, No. 07-513,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The lower court concluded that the error in failing to update the computer database to reflect the recall of the arrest warrant was negligent, not reckless or deliberate. That negligent error was not enough, by itself to require the extreme sanction of exclusion under the. Assuming that aviolation occurred when defendant was arrested on the recalled arrest warrant, the exclusionary rule did not apply as the error that occurred arose from nonrecurring and attenuated negligence. It was far removed from the core concerns that led to the exclusionary rule's adoption. To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct had to be sufficiently deliberate such that exclusion could meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence was worth the price paid by the justice system. In this case, the miscommunications were not routine or widespread; they were not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion.
|
|||||
| Oregon v. Ice, No. 07-901,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses, based on facts found by court rather than jury under Or. Rev. Stat. ¿ 137.123, did not violate constitutional right to jury trial, since jury historically played no role in determining consecutive or concurrent sentences and state had sovereign authority to administer its penal system.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
