The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an individual who is developmentally disabled could not be sentenced to the death penalty in:
A. Furman v. Georgia (1972)
B. Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
C. McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)
D. Payne v. Tennessee (1991)
E. Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Answer: E
You might also like to view...
Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code was originally designed to provide a way to appeal to the federal courts in cases of alleged violations of civil rights
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Mitigating circumstances refer to situations that require a tougher sentence
a. True b. False
Ian is a new attorney who has begun his own law practice. His first client comes seeking advice. The client recounts a series of events in which an altercation broke out last night at the local tavern. He asks Ian what possible charges he may face for his role in the barroom brawl. What he is asking for requires an understanding of ______.
a. criminal procedure b. due process c. substantive criminal law d. criminal intent
Billy was not read his Miranda Rights prior to being asked some basic questions on the side of the road. Yet, a video tape of him slurring his words in response to the officer’s questions was played at trial. If the Supreme Court were to hear an appeal
based on this information, it would: Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint. At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy’s breath and asks him to step out of the car. Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going. Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words. Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station. At the station, a sample of Billy’s blood is taken. Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance. At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence. He is convicted of DUI. a. rule the videotape evidence inadmissible because Miranda Rights were not given. b. allow the videotape into evidence because this was not a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda. c. rule the videotape inadmissible because a warrant was not obtained. d. rule the videotape inadmissible unless the checkpoint were in fact a “drug checkpoint.”