This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The United States Supreme Court Monday denied the appeal of Ramin Khorrami, an Arizona man who was convicted of fraud before an eight-member jury. Six states in the US allow for trials before six or eight-person juries in felony cases: Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts and Utah.
The US Supreme Courtruled Friday in US v. The crux of the case rests on Article III of the US Constitution, which governs the Court’s judicial purview. .” The US District Court Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of the states, enjoining Homeland Security from enforcing the memorandum.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed , holding that the federal government owes “an affirmative trust duty … to ensure that the Nation has an adequate water supply,” including from the Colorado River. Navajo Nation and Arizona v. Arizona , 21-1553. The cases are Department of the Interior v. Navajo Nation. New Relists.
Arizona , 21-1553. Issue : Whether the Sixth and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony. (rescheduled before the May 12, May 19, May 26, June 2, June 9, June 16, June 23 conferences; relisted after the Sept. 14 conferences). Khorrami v. relisted after the Sept.
Petitioner Ramin Khorrami was convicted of fraud in Arizona state court by an eight-person jury. Arizona he asks the Supreme Court to overrule a 1970 precedent holding that states can use juries as small as six jurors to try defendants for felonies. Arizona , 21-1553. 28 conference). Khorrami v.
Arizona , 21-1553. Issue : Whether the Sixth and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony. (rescheduled before the May 12, May 19, May 26, June 2, June 9, June 16, June 23 conferences; relisted after the Sept. 28 and Oct. 7 conferences). Khorrami v. 28 and Oct.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights some of the cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. In 1974, the Supreme Courtruled that the Constitution generally permits states to strip people convicted of felonies of their right to vote. Felony disenfranchisement has a long, and often racist, history.
Here’s the Friday morning read: Native voters can swing elections, but courtruling suppresses turnout, leaders say (Arlyssa D. Will, The Washington Post) The Supreme Court Just Signaled What It Will Do If the Election Is Close (Norman L. Probably so.
Yesterday, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes became the latest Democratic prosecutor to suggest a possible criminal charge against former President Donald Trump. Colorado, the Supreme Courtruled that criminal threats must be based on a showing of a culpable mental state. Even under Counterman v.
The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. The federal district court for the District of Arizona enjoined the U.S.
The federal district court for the Eastern District of California held that more analysis of the impacts climate change would have on a water transfer program for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta was required under NEPA. 22, 2018; consolidated ruling Jan. Arizona Board of Regents , No. 34-2015-80002005 (Cal. judgment Feb.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to lift those orders while they appealed. The court of appeals refused, instead expediting argument. By a split vote, the 6th Circuit then reversed the lower courts’ rulings , concluding that the states were likely to win their appeals. The court thus allowed the laws go into effect.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content