Epstein Secrets

jury beyond a reasonable doubt." Ring, 536 U.S. at 602, 122 S.Ct. 2428 (citing Apprendl, 530 U.S. at 482-83, 120 S.Ct. 2348). Two years later, in Ring the Supreme Court held that an aggravating factor rendering a defendant death-eligible "operate[s] as the functional equivalent of an element of a greater of- fense

. FN26. Currently, the circuit courts are split as to whether duplicative aggravating factors are unconstitu- tional and as to the meaning of the Supreme Court's decision in Jones. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have aligned with the Tenth Circuit and adopted their own variations of tke rule in McCullah. Se

light of Jones, see United States D. 1?obin- son, 367 F.3d 278, 292-93 (5th Cir.2004) ("Although our case law once [supported the theory], the Su- preme Court recently admonished that it does not support that theory of review.") O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westl

based on the fact that the govern- ment presented evidence that de- fendant was a member of a gang that had committed violen and un- lawful acts); Wainwright . Lock- hart, 80 F.3d 1226, 1 4 (8th Cir.1996) (ruling that questioning of defendant on involvement in street gang "did not serve any prop- er reb

roper purpose." The 5th Circuit was ordered to further investigate Panetti's mental state based on this new "rational understanding" standard. But the Supreme Court's attempt to codify and expand upon the vague guidelines it set out in the Ford case has made little difference in practice. Judges often ignore the n

the moral ground on which America's legal system rests. That's essentially what the United States Supreme Court ruled in the 1986 case of Ford v. Wainwright. Citing centuries of English common-law precedent, the court pronounced that a civilized society cannot condone the execution of a person with so we

83, 86 (1963) (holding prosecution's withholding of the confession of defendant's confederate violated defendant's due process rights). 7 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 342 (1963) (extending Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel to indigent state criminal defendants); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.

e citizens with "honest services" 1°? 160 - wrongdoing for which the public harm is sometimes hard to identify. [#894] By some accounts, including the U.S. Supreme Court's on occasion, 1°! this enforcement agenda has been overly aggressive. '°? But Congress has generally encouraged far-reaching federal enforcement, not

People Priority Goal"). 46 See Lichtblau, supra note 141. 47 See Paul G. Cassell & James R. Marsh, Full Restitution for Child Pornography Victims: The Supreme Court's Paroline Decision and the Need for a Congressional Response, /3 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 1, 7 (2015). 48 See U.S. Dep't of Justice, supra note 145, at I

in opposition to a plea. The prosecutor refused to convey that information to the court and the trial judge accepted the plea. When the issue reached the Utah Supreme Court, the court concluded that the prosecutor had an ethical obligation as an officer of the court to convey that information to the judge: Prosecutors m

n handedly to both prosecution and the defense. Neither side is required to disclose the address or telephone number of a victim, thus complying with the Supreme Court's instruction that "in the absence of a strong showing of state interests to the contrary, discovery must be a two- 204 See infra notes 528-539 and ac

ermits the court in both civil and criminal cases to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 49° And before Gideon v. Wainwright, *°° courts could request 45 Td. 46 Td. 47 Tn possible response to such concerns as I raise here, the Advisory Committee modified the Advisory Comm

--- Page 21 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *870 court, and the trial judge accepted the plea. The victim then obtained legal counsel and appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, urging that under the Utah Victims’ Rights Amendment, her right to be heard regarding a plea had been violated. The State responded that the victim

also resided in that state would be incidental. An understanding of the Article II] provision as protecting the community's interest is bolstered by the Supreme Court's decisions on right of public access to trials. In cases such as Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 7°4 the Court has held that a guarantee of the

nd criminal cases. 3!! While these cases do not directly involve [*913] appointment of counsel for crime victims, their principles 309 Cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963) (discussing "fairness" to the defendant as a reason for recognizing a right to appointed counsel). 310 150 Cong. Rec. S426