The fact!macon georgia is mad because they can't arrest me along with the fact for their law enforcement putting their hand's a female is really costing them a lot but it's only right!The next thing is for to work with the Department of Family and Children services to conceal the phsyical abuse of a minor a under age the age 18 year's old -Kidnapping-and more also comes with a major price .Because I'd not my mentally birthmother Virginia Harris they'll have to explain the crime was or wasn't reported -along with who investigated the crime-what witnesses did they question-what Statute of Limitation is running-why have they kept on Violating Victims and Witnesses Rights'-How are the false arrest legal with the ones under of office still under oath of office which they violated concealing person from arrest and more!
Note: This here is for Macon Georgia Medica Contacts and Lists (Except Me and Commander in Chief Barack Obama –My Family –My Extended Family-and Olgethrope Community) ,Macon Georgia Government Directory (Except Me and Commander in Chief Barack Obama and our Adminstration),and more who despise the word of God and are only hearer’s of the word of God not doer’s !The Macon Georgia Medical Center and River Edge Behavorial Clinic along with their C.E.O.’s,Adminstration’s,Doctor’s,Nurse’s,Partner’s and Stakeholder’s,Intern’s, their family and friend’s,working with The department of Family and Children Services as well they’re also a party to the crime of Sexual Abuse of a Minor a ward of the court Under age 12 1988-1989,Violation of oath as Doctors and nurses,working with citizens and informant’s ,iilegal wiretap order approved by the judge as retaliating against victims and witnesses!Weny’s 2007 Kevin who attended Central Highschool and Mercer law College thank’s for being a party to the crime of the damn whispering bitch the LORD and I know ya’ll are abomination to the LORD thy GOD and Jesus is LORD!
1. Proverbs 13:13
New King James Version (NKJV)
13 He who despises the word will be destroyed,
But he who fears the commandment will be rewarded.
2. Luke 8:21
New King James Version (NKJV)
21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
3. Matthew 12:49-50
New King James Version (NKJV)
49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
4. Matthew 7
Do Not Judge
1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
5. Matthew 7:24-25
New King James Version (NKJV)
Build on the Rock
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
The fact which is documented Macon Georgia Law Enforcement,Prosecuting Attorney’s and Judge’s (City –State-Federal) ,and more all violated their Oath of Office when they illegally arrested-sentenced and convicted me as a minor to Cocainne Possession with Intent to Distribute and dropped the false identification charge in 2000.They illegal felony also involved the Macon Georgia Business Community !The Macon Georgia Law Enforcement,Prosecuting Attorney and Judge’s(City-State-Federal) ,and more were also concealing the first degree Murder of Alex Harris Jr. in 1965 and Crime Committed Against An Elderly Person my late Grand father Alex Harris Sr. on Sept 2.1965 the illegal verdict was delivered by The Bibb County Superior Court judge just like my illegal verdict against the weight of Evidence in 2000 for Cocainne Possession with intent to distribute .The Macon Georgia Black community are also a party to the crime already knowing Virginia Harris is mentally ill they was building their refuge of lies off of the thing’s she’s been saying I’d have to say from 1996 probably longer using the illegal wiretap order approved by the judge the wire communication inside her house and my family-my extended family and Olgethrope Community working with the Oral Communication the snitches –employees-and etc… living next door to them!The fcat they can’t arrest-sentence and convict me for none the computer Electronic Communication Wiretap order are actually open confession’s making everything easier for me and The Executive Branch when arresting-sentencing and convicting them to death for the crimes which they have all committed because it would go against the United States of America Constitution and against the law not arrest-sentence and convict them to death and it would also violate my Victims Right’s ,the children of my late grandfather Alex Harris Jr. and my late grandmother Mrs.Mattie Lee Gibson Harris a.k.a.my sister by Jesus is LORD and their children ,the children of my late grandfather Alex Harris Sr.and my late grandmother Mrs.Gertrude Woods Harris and their children, my late great great grandfather Lennard Gibson and my late great great grandmother Mrs.Mattie M. Gibson a.k.a.my/our momma by Jesus is LORD and their children and our right’s as United States of America Citiznes and our priviledges and immunities.
Color (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)
In U.S. law, the term color of denotes the “mere semblance of legal right”, the “pretense or appearance of” right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.[1]
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Color of law
• 2 Color of office
• 3 Color of title
o 3.1 Appropriation of name or likeness
• 4 References
[edit] Color of law
It has been suggested that Under color of authority be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since May 2009.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating. [2]
The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law", it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Enforcement of "color of law" does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include forced vaccinations for school aged children under threat of expulsion or placing the child's parents under arrest where no law exists to do so. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.[3] Furthermore, in many states it is unlawful to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official or to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as flashing lights or a fake police badge. "Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer."[4]
[edit] Color of office
Color of office refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority, but which exceeds such authority. An serving as act committed under color of office is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office.
[edit] Color of title
In property law, color of title refers to a claim to title which appears valid, but may be legally defective. Color of title may arise when there is evidence, such as a writing, suggesting valid legal title. The courts have ruled that deeds are mere color of title; the actual title to land is secured with an irrefutable instrument like a land patent, then when that land is subsequently conveyed to another owner by a deed, the deed colors the title to show the new owner. Thus, the chain of title from the land patent to the present may include many deeds, the actual title remains with the land patent and lawful deeds show the chain of title to the present landowner. Because the ownership in land is a very specific thing requiring precise and proper transfers of ownership, in times past, people always required a certified abstract be provided with a deed to insure the deed was not merely a color of title fiction. Today, title companies offer 'title insurance' to secure such documents. Still, only a proper and lawful title, like the land patent, provides actual title to land; and, only a proper and lawful chain of title (deeds, etc.) from such a patent to the present can secure land rights to the landowner.
However, even with land secured by patent, the proper grant of title can be implied by adverse possession, which is the basis for claims exemplified in Torrens title. The Torrens system operates on the principle of "title by registration", in which the act of registering an interest in land in a state-operated registry creates an indefeasible title in the registrant, which, like the land patent, can be challenged only in very limited circumstances.
[edit] Appropriation of name or likeness
Main article: Personality rights
Although this is a common-law tort, most states have enacted statutes that prohibit the use of a person’s name or image if used without consent for the commercial benefit of another person. A person's exclusive rights to control his or her name and likeness to prevent others from exploiting personal information without permission is protected in similar manner to a title or trademark action with the person's likeness and personal information, rather than the trademark or title, being the subject of the protection.[5]
The tort of false light involves a misappropriation or "major misrepresentation" of a person's "character, history, activities or belief."[6] In the United States, one who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if:
1. The false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
2. The actor acted with malice—had reason to know of or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
See Section 652E of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.[7]
UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW
Covers not only acts done by an official under a State law, but also acts done by an official under any ordinance of a county or municipality of the State, as well as acts done under any regulation issued by any State or County or Municipal official, and even acts done by an official under color of some State or local custom.
To act "under color of state law" means to act beyond the bounds of lawful authority, but in such a manner that the unlawful acts were done while the official was purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties. In other words, the unlawful acts must consist of an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official.A person may be found guilty even though he was not an official or employee of the State, or of any county, city, or other governmental unit if the essential elements of the offense charged have been established and the person was a willful participant with the state or its agents in the doing of such acts.
"Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of' state law." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ." 42 U.S.C. S 1983 (1988)
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:
a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:
a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;
b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;
d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;
e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or
f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.
3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 248
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act
This statute prohibits (1) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or any class of persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship. This statute does not apply to speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Non obstructive demonstrations are legal.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be up to six months, or both, for the first offense: and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be up to $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be up to ten years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.
back to top
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141
Pattern and Practice
This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
Note: This here is for Macon Georgia Medica Contacts and Lists (Except Me and Commander in Chief Barack Obama –My Family –My Extended Family-and Olgethrope Community) ,Macon Georgia Government Directory (Except Me and Commander in Chief Barack Obama and our Adminstration),and more are a party to the crime-conspirator’s-Fugitives from Justice-Accessory after the fact-and more!!!It’s the reason they mad and wanted me to do it myself but they can explain it to National Whistle Blower!!!
•
Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty
• Summary of States' Death Penalty Statutes - From Bureau of Justice Statistics
• Death Penalty for Offenses Other Than Murder - State and Federal Laws that allow Capital Punishment when no death has occurred
• DPIC's Page on Kennedy v. Louisiana - Striking down the death penalty for non-homicide offenses against individuals
• Those Executed Who Did Not Directly Kill the Victim
• Aggravating Factors by State - Lists of the factors that could make a defendant eligible for the Death Penalty
• Mitigating Factors by State - List of the various state statutes defining mitigating circumstances for their respective jurisdictions
• State by State Information - Database of State Death Penalty information
• Federal Mitigating and Aggravating Factors - Federal Death Penalty statutes mitigating and aggravating factors
• Federal Death Penalty - Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty
________________________________________
News and Developments - Current Year
News and Developments - Previous Years
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
________________________________________
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment 2009, (December 2010) lists the following as capital crimes, by state:
________________________________________
Alabama - Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (Ala. Stat. Ann. 13A-5-40(a)(1)-(18)).
Arizona - First-degree murder accompanied by at least 1 of 14 aggravating factors (A.R.S. § 13-703(F)).
Arkansas - Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; treason.
California - First-degree murder with special circumstances; sabotage; train wrecking causing death; treason; perjury causing execution of an innocent person; fatal assault by a prisoner serving a life sentence.
Colorado - First-degree murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping resulting in death; treason.
Connecticut - Capital felony with 8 forms of aggravated homicide (C.G.S. § 53a-54b).
Delaware - First-degree murder with at least 1 statutory aggravating circumstance (11 Del. C. § 4209).
Florida - First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.
Georgia - Murder; kidnapping with bodily injury or ransom when the victim dies; aircraft hijacking; treason.
Idaho - First-degree murder with aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping; perjury resulting in death.
Illinois - First-degree murder with 1 of 21 aggravating circumstances (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/9-1). [Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011]
Indiana - Murder with 16 aggravating circumstances
Kansas - Capital murder with 8 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439, KSA 21-4625, KSA 21-4636).
Kentucky - Murder with aggravating factors; kidnapping with aggravating factors (KRS 532.025).
Louisiana - First-degree murder; treason (La. R.S. 14:30 and 14:113).
Maryland - First-degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony, provided that certain death eligibility requirements are satisfied.
Mississippi - Capital murder (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)); aircraft piracy (Miss. Code Ann. § 97-25-55(1)).
Missouri - First-degree murder (565.020 RSMO 2000).
Montana - Capital murder with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-303); aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-503).
Nebraska - First-degree murder with a finding of at least 1 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstance.
Nevada - First-degree murder with at least 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (NRS 200.030, 200.033, 200.035).
New Hampshire - Murder committed in the course of rape, kidnapping, or drug crimes; killing of a law enforcement officer; murder for hire; murder by an inmate while serving a sentence of life without parole (RSA 630:1, RSA 630:5).
New York* - First-degree murder with 1 of 13 aggravating factors (NY Penal Law §125.27). [New York abolished the death penalty in 2007]
North Carolina - First-degree murder (NCGS §14-17).
Ohio - Aggravated murder with at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances (O.R.C. secs. 2903.01, 2929.02, and 2929.04).
Oklahoma - First-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances; sex crimes against a child under 14 years of age.
Oregon - Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095).
Pennsylvania - First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances.
South Carolina - Murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (§ 16-3-20(C)(a))
South Dakota - First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances.
Tennessee - First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204).
Texas - Criminal homicide with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Tex. Penal Code § 19.03).
Utah - Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code Annotated).
Virginia - First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (VA Code § 18.2-31).
Washington - Aggravated first-degree murder.
Wyoming - First-degree murder; murder during the commission of sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, arson, robbery, escape, resisting arrest, kidnapping, or abuse of a minor under 16.
________________________________________
*The New York Court of Appeals has held that a portion of New York’s death penalty sentencing statute (CPL 400.27) was unconstitutional (People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129 (2007)). As a result, no defendants can be sentenced to death until the legislature corrects the errors in this statute.
a.) The United States Supreme Court struck a portion of the Louisiana capital statute on June 25, 2008 (Kennedy v. Louisiana, U.S. 128 S.Ct. 2641). The statute (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:42(D)(2)) allowing execution as a punishment for the rape of a minor when no murder had been committed had been ruled constitutionally permissible by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court found that since no national consensus existed for application of the death penalty in cases of rape where no murder had been committed, such laws constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The ruling affects laws passed in Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Montana.
b.) The Nebraska Supreme Court struck a portion of the state’s capital statute on February 8, 2008 (State v. Mata, 745 N.W.2d 229, 278 (2008)). The court found that Nebraska's electrocution procedure violated the state constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
c.) The New York Court of Appeals has held that a portion of New York's death penalty sentencing statute (CPL 400.27) was unconstitutional (People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129 (2007)). As a result, no defendants can be sentenced to death until the legislature corrects the errors in this statute.
d.) Two states revised statutory provisions relating to the death penalty during 2008.
Share
• 487036 reads
Home | About DPIC | Privacy Policy
©2011 Death Penalty Information Center
Note:
Victim's Rights
Defendants Have The Right To Remain Silent...
Victims Have The Right To Be Heard.
In the past victims were treated as witnesses rather than actual participants in the criminal justice system. This limited their ability to set in on court sessions or have direct input into their cases. The Victim Witness Program began in the late 1970's in an effort to provide much needed services for crime victims. Then in November 1992, Colorado voters passed an amendment to the Colorado Constitution giving victims of violent crime specific rights within the justice system.
The Victim Rights Amendment provides violent crime victims with three basic rights:
• To be treated with fairness, dignity and respect
• To be informed of the progress of the case
• To be present and heard at all critical stages of the criminal justice process
The District Attorney and all the staff strive daily to uphold these rights. The following section gives information drawn from the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment.
The Victim Rights Act states that victims have the right:
• To be treated with fairness, respect and dignity;
• To be informed of and present for all "critical stages" of the criminal justice process;
• To be free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse; and to have the right to be informed about what steps can be taken if there is any intimidation or harassment by a person accused or convicted of the crime or anyone acting on the person's behalf;
• To be given appropriate employer intercession services regarding court appearances and meetings with criminal justice officials;
• To be assured that in any criminal proceeding the court, the prosecutor, and other law enforcement officials will take appropriate action to achieve a swift and fair resolution of the proceedings;
• To be present and heard regarding bond reduction, continuances, acceptance of plea negotiations, case disposition, or sentencing;
• To consult with the district attorney prior to any disposition of the case or before the case goes to trial and to be informed of the final disposition of the case; To be informed of the status of the case and any scheduling changes, if known in advance;
• To prepare a Victim Impact Statement and to be present and/or heard at sentencing;
• To have restitution ordered and to be informed of the right to pursue a civil judgment against the person;
• To receive a prompt return of property when it is no longer needed as evidence;
• To be informed of the availability of financial assistance and community services;
• Whenever practicable, to have a safe, secure waiting area during court proceedings;
• Upon request, to be informed when a person accused or convicted of the crime is released from custody, is paroled, escapes or absconds from probation or parole;
• Upon written request, to be informed of and heard at any reconsideration of sentence, parole hearing, or commutation of sentence;
• Upon written request, to be informed of the filing of a complaint, summons, or warrant by probation for failure to report or because location of a person convicted of a crime is unknown, request for change of venue or transfer of probation supervision, request for release from probation supervision prior to the expiration of original sentence;
• Upon written request, to be informed when a person convicted of a crime is placed in or transferred to a less secure correctional facility or program or is permanently or conditionally transferred or released from any state hospital;
• To be informed of any rights which the victim has pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Colorado;
• To be informed of the process for enforcing compliance with the Victim Rights Act.
Crimes Covered by the Victim Rights Act
The Constitution of the State of Colorado and the laws of the state [Section 24-4.1-302(1) C.R.S.] guarantee certain rights to victims of the following criminal acts:
• Murder;
• Manslaughter;
• Criminally negligent homicide and vehicular homicide;
• Assault;
• Menacing;
• Kidnapping;
• Sexual assault;
• Incest and aggravated incest;
• Child abuse;
• Sexual exploitation of children
• Crimes against at-risk adults and at-risk juveniles;
• Indecent exposure;
• Violation of a criminal protection order issued against a person charged with sexual assault;
• Robbery-aggravated, aggravated of a controlled substance;
• Crimes for which the underlying foundation has been determined to be domestic violence;
• Careless driving that results in the death of another person;
• Failure to stop at the scene of an accident that results in the death of another person;
• Stalking;
• Ethnic intimidation;
• Retaliation against a victim or witness;
• Tampering with a victim or witness;
• Intimidation and aggravated intimidation of a victim or witness; and
• Any criminal attempt, conspiracy, criminal solicitation, or accessory involving any of the crimes specified above. If a victim is deceased or incapacitated, these rights may be exercised by the victim's spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, significant other, or other lawful representative.
Critical Stages
A victim's rights are related to certain "critical stages" in the criminal justice process. These stages include:
• Filing of charges and the decision not to file charges;
• Preliminary hearing;
• Any bond reduction or modification hearing;*
• Arraignment hearing;
• Motions hearing;
• Any subpoena for a victim's mental health, medical, education or victim compensation records;
• Disposition of the complaint or charges against the person accused;*
• Trial;
• Sentencing hearing;*
• Appellate review or appellate decision;
• Sentence reconsideration;*
• Probation revocation hearing;
• Transfer, release, or escape of a person charged with or convicted of a crime from any state hospital;
• The filing of a complaint, summons, or warrant by probation for failure to report or because the location of a person convicted of a crime is unknown;
• The change of venue or transfer of probation supervision;
• Request for release from probation supervision prior to the expiration of the defendant's sentence;
• An attack on judgment or conviction for which a court hearing is set;
• Parole application hearing;
• Parole, release, or discharge from imprisonment of a person convicted of a crime;
• Parole revocation hearing;
• Transfer to or placement of a person convicted of a crime in a non-secure facility;
• The execution of an offender in a capital case.
• Any petition by a sex offender to terminate sex offender registration; and
*In addition to the right to be informed and present, the victim also has a right to be heard at hearings on bond reduction or modification, disposition of the case such as acceptance of a negotiated plea, and at sentencing.
District Attorneys' Responsibilities
District Attorneys' Offices have the responsibility to notify crime victims of:
• The filing of charges and provide an explanation of the charges;
• Decisions not to file charges in felony cases;
• Appropriate critical stages and the date, time and place of specified critical stages in the court proceedings;
• The name of the deputy district attorney handling the case and the court to which the case is assigned;
• Any pending motion that may substantially delay the prosecution and inform the court of the victim's position on the motion;
• The availability of any benefits and/or transportation to and from court; and
• Any scheduling changes or cancellations, if such changes or cancellations are known in advance.
In addition, the District Attorney shall:
• Consult, where practicable, with the victim concerning the reduction of charges, negotiated pleas, dismissal or other dispositions;
• Minimize contact between the victim and the defendant before, during, and immediately after a court proceeding;
• Facilitate the prompt return of a victim's property when it is no longer needed for evidentiary reasons;
• Provide the victim with the opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement that is given to the Court;
• Inform the victim of the function of a pre-sentence report and the name and telephone number of the probation officer preparing the report, as well as the defendant's right to view the pre-sentence report and the victim impact statement;
• Explain the victim's right to attend and express an opinion at the sentencing hearing;
• Inform the victim of any hearing for reconsideration or modification of a sentence; and
• Inform the victim of the right to receive information from correctional officials concerning the imprisonment and release of a person convicted of a crime against the victim.
Law Enforcement's Responsibilities
Law enforcement agencies have the responsibility to provide victims of crime with written information about:
• The rights enumerated in the Victim Rights Act;
• The availability of financial resources such as victim compensation benefits and how to apply for those benefits;
• The availability of protective court orders in order to obtain protection from the person accused of committing the crime; and
• The availability of public records related to the case.
In addition, law enforcement agencies are required to:
• Provide information about community services such as crisis intervention services, victim assistance resources, legal resources, mental health services, financial services and other support services;
• Provide information about interpretation services, assistance in dealing with creditors due to financial setbacks caused by the crime and childcare to enable a crime victim to cooperate with the prosecution;
• Provide the victim of crime with the business address and telephone number of the district attorney's office, the file number of the case and the name, business address and telephone number of any law enforcement officer assigned to investigate the case;
• Keep the victim of crime informed as to whether a suspect has been taken into custody and, if known, whether the suspect has been released from custody and any bond conditions imposed upon the suspect;
• Update the victim on the status of the case, prior to the filing of charges;
• Upon the request of the victim, return the victim's property within 5 working days when it is no longer needed for evidentiary reasons;
• Inform victims of crime about decisions not to file charges in misdemeanor cases;
• Inform all victims of cold cases of any change in the status of the case; and
• Upon written request, provide victims of cold cases for which the crime has a statute of limitations of longer than three years with an annual update concerning the status of the case.
Probation Department's Responsibilities
Upon written request of the victim, the Probation Department shall:
• Provide the victim with the location and telephone number of the probation department responsible for the supervision of the person;
• Notify the victim of the date of the person's termination from probation supervision;
• Advise the victim of any requested release of the person in advance of the person's imposed sentence;
• Notify the victim of the date of a probation revocation or modification hearing;
• Advise the victim of any change of venue or transfer of probation supervision from one jurisdiction to another;
• Notify the victim of any complaint, summons, or warrant filed by the probation department for failure to report to probation or because the location of the person is unknown;
• Notify the victim of the death of a person while under the jurisdiction of the probation department; and
• In domestic violence cases, notify the victim of any conduct by the defendant that results in an increase in the defendant's supervision level by probation.
Victim's Responsibilities
Victims of crime have the following responsibilities:
• Keep appropriate criminal justice authorities informed of their or their representative's current name, address, and telephone number, and any changes in this information;
• Provide a written request to the appropriate agency if they want to be notified of information regarding the postsentencing process.
• Request forms for enrollment information can be obtained from the District Attorney's Office, the Probation Department, the Department of Corrections, the Division of Youth Corrections or the local jail;
• For victims of cold cases for which the crime has a statute of limitations of longer than three (3) years, to request in writing an annual update in the status of the case;
• To request notification of the release of a person accused or convicted of a crime from the county jail;
• To request notification by the court of a defendant's petition to stop sex offender registration; and
• To request that correctional officials keep their address, telephone, place of employment and other personal information confidential.
If you feel that your rights have been violated, you should attempt to seek compliance on the local level:
Victim/Witness Program Director
Office of the District Attorney
201 La Porte Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2763
(970) 498-7281
If all local efforts to obtain your rights have failed, you may request assistance from the Coordinating Committee:
Colorado Department of Public Safety
Division of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80215-4442
1-888-282-1080 Toll Free
For a complete listing of your rights refer to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-4.1-101. If you have any additional questions or desire additional information on crime victim rights, contact the Victim Witness Unit at 498-7285.
For more information, see the Department of Criminal Justice, Office of Victim Services brochure Crime Victims have Rights.
Larimer County updates from: Email • RSS • Twitter • Facebook • YouTube
Home • Search • Contact Us • Legal Disclaimers || Plain Text • Convierta al Español
200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 • 970-498-7000 || © 1995-2011, Larimer County
42 U.S.C. § 1983 : US Code - Section 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights
Search 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : US Code - Section 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights
• Search by Keyword or Citation
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States of America
This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
________________________________________
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I • II • III • IV • V
VI • VII • VIII • IX • X
Subsequent Amendments
XI • XII • XIII • XIV • XV
XVI • XVII • XVIII • XIX • XX
XXI • XXII • XXIII • XXIV • XXV
XXVI • XXVII
Unratified Amendments
I(1) • XIII(1) • XIII(2) • XX(1) • XXVII(1) • XXVII(2)
________________________________________
Other countries • Law Portal
view • talk • edit
The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[edit] Text
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[note 1][1]
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
[edit] Rights conferred
[edit] Speedy trial
Defendants in criminal cases have the right to a speedy trial. In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated in the case. The four factors are:
• Length of delay: A delay of a year or more from the date on which the speedy trial right "attaches" (the date of arrest or indictment, whichever first occurs) was termed "presumptively prejudicial," but the Court has never explicitly ruled that any absolute time limit applies.
• Reason for the delay: The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations.
• Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right: If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim that he has been unduly delayed.
• Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
In Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and/or the conviction overturned. The Court has held that, since the delayed trial is the state action which violates the defendant's rights, no other remedy would be appropriate. Thus, a reversal or dismissal of a criminal case on speedy trial grounds means that no further prosecution for the alleged offense can take place.
[edit] Public trial
See main article: Public trial
In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. In cases where excess publicity would serve to undermine the defendant's right to due process, limitations can be put on public access to the proceedings. According to Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986), trials can be closed at the behest of the government on account of there being "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." The accused may also request a closure of the trial; though, it must be demonstrated that “first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
[edit] Impartial jury
Main article: Jury trial
The right to a jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement.[2] Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist.[3] Also, in the United States, except for serious offenses (such as murder), "minors" are usually tried in a juvenile court, which lessens the sentence allowed, but forfeits the right to a jury.
Originally, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial indicated a right to “a trial by jury as understood and applied at common law, and includes all the essential elements as they were recognized in this country and England when the Constitution was adopted.”[4] Therefore, it was held that juries had to be composed of twelve persons and that verdicts had to be unanimous, as was customary in England. When, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court extended the right to a trial by jury to defendants in state courts, it re-examined some of the standards. It has been held that twelve came to be the number of jurors by "historical accident," and that a jury of six would be sufficient[5] but anything less would deprive the defendant of a right to trial by jury.[6] Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity.[7]
The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial. Impartiality has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased. At voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if the same is found; the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause. Defendants may not challenge a conviction because a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges.
Another factor in determining the impartiality of the jury is the nature of the panel, or venire, from which the jurors are selected. Venires must represent a fair cross-section of the community; the defendant may establish that the requirement was violated by showing that the allegedly excluded group is a "distinctive" one in the community, that the representation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unfair in regard to the number of persons belonging to such a group, and that the under-representation is caused by a systematic exclusion in the selection process. Thus, in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that exempted women who had not made a declaration of willingness to serve from jury service, while not doing the same for men.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution requires defendants be tried by juries selected from the state in which the crime was committed. The Sixth Amendment extends the rule by requiring trials to occur in districts ascertained by statute. In Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73 (1904), the Supreme Court ruled that the place where the offense is charged to have occurred determines the trial's location. Where multiple districts are alleged to have been locations of the crime, any of them may be chosen for the trial. In cases of offenses not committed in any state (for example, offenses committed at sea), the place of trial may be determined by the Congress.
[edit] Notice of accusation
See also: Notice
A defendant has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Therefore, an indictment must allege all the ingredients of the crime to such a degree of precision that it would allow the accused to assert double jeopardy if the same charges are brought up in subsequent prosecution.[8] The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881) that “in an indictment ... it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.” Vague wording, even if taken directly from a statute, does not suffice. However, the government is not required to hand over written copies of the indictment free of charge.[9]
[edit] Confrontation
See also: Confrontation Clause
The defense must have an opportunity to "confront" and cross-examine witnesses. The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay, that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of a person to prove that the statement or observation was accurate. The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person making the statements. Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule have been permitted; for instance, admissions by the defendant are admissible, as are dying declarations.[10] Nevertheless, in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970), the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not the same as the Confrontation Clause. Hearsay may, in some circumstances, be admitted though it is not covered by one of the long-recognized exceptions. For example, prior testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is unavailable. Yet in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court increased the scope of the Confrontation Clause in trials. The Court ruled that "testimonial" out-of-court statements are inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial. In Davis v. Washington 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Court ruled that "testimonial" refers to any statement that an objectively reasonable person in the declarant's situation would believe likely to be used in court. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. ___ (2009), the Court ruled that admitting a lab chemist's analysis in to evidence, without having him testify, violated the Confrontation Clause.[11] In Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), the Court ruled that the "primary purpose" of a shooting victim's statement as to who shot him, and the police's reason for questioning him, each had to be objectively determined. If the "primary purpose" was for dealing with an "ongoing emergency", then any such statement was not testimonial and so the Confrontation Clause would not require the person making that statement to testify in order for that statement to be admitted into evidence.[12]
The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses also applies to physical evidence; the prosecution must present physical evidence to the jury, providing the defense ample opportunity to cross-examine its validity and meaning. Prosecution generally may not refer to evidence without first presenting it.
In the late 20th and early 21st century this clause became an issue in the use of the silent witness rule.
[edit] Compulsory process
The Compulsory Process Clause gives any criminal defendant the right to call witnesses in his favor. If any such witness refuses to testify, that witness may be compelled to do so by the court at the request of the defendant.[13][14] However, in some cases the court may refuse to permit a defense witness to testify. For example, if a defense lawyer fails to notify the prosecution of the identity of a witness to gain a tactical advantage, that witness may be precluded from testifying.[15]
[edit] Counsel
See also: Right to counsel
A defendant has the right to be represented by the attorney(s) of his choice or may represent himself. However, a court may deny the defendant such a right when it is deemed that the defendant is incompetent to waive the right to counsel.
Originally, the clause was not interpreted as requiring the state to appoint counsel where the defendant could not afford to do so. The Supreme Court began to expand the interpretation of the clause. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), in which it held, “in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him.” In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own. In Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), the Court declined to extend this requirement to the state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment unless the defendant demonstrated "special circumstances" requiring the assistance of counsel.
In 1961, the Court extended the rule that applied in federal courts to state courts. It held in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961), that counsel had to be provided at no expense to defendants in capital cases when they so requested, even if there was no "ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like." Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), explicitly overruled Betts v. Brady, finding counsel must be provided to indigent defendants in all felony cases, whether capital or otherwise. Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), and Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), expanded the right further, guaranteeing counsel in any charge resulting in a sentence of actual imprisonment.
As stated in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), the right to counsel “[means] at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.”[16] Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversary proceeding have begun against a defendant, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him[17] and that when a defendant is arrested, “arraigned on [an arrest] warrant before a judge,” and “committed by the court to confinement,” “[t]here can be no doubt that judicial proceedings ha[ve] been initiated.”
[edit] Self-representation
See also: Pro se legal representation in the United States
The Supreme Court expanded the right to pro se representation, holding in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the power to choose or waive counsel lies with the accused, and a state cannot intrude, though it later held in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993), that a state could deny the waiver if it believed the accused less than fully competent to adequately proceed without counsel. In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), the Court ruled that a criminal defendant could be simultaneously competent to stand trial and yet not competent to represent himself. In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right of "meaningful access to the courts" can be satisfied by counsel or access to legal materials. Bounds has been interpreted, by several federal courts of appeals, to mean a pro se defendant does not have a constitutional right to access a prison law library to research his defense when access to the courts has been provided through appointed counsel.[18]
In Martinez v. California Court of Appeals, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled the right to pro se representation did not apply to appellate courts.
[edit] See also
• In absentia
[
Text Preamble and Articles • Bill of Rights • Subsequent Amendments
Articles Preamble • One • Two • Three • Four • Five • Six • Seven
Amendments Bill of Rights
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10
11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27
Ratified • Proposed • Conventions to propose • State ratifying conventions
Formation History • Articles of Confederation • Mount Vernon Conference • Annapolis Convention • Philadelphia Convention (Virginia Plan • New Jersey Plan • Connecticut Compromise • Three-Fifths Compromise • Signers) • Federalist Papers (list) • Massachusetts Compromise
Clauses Appointments • Appropriations • Case or Controversy • Citizenship • Commerce • Compact • Confrontation • Contract • Copyright and Patent • Due Process • Emolument • Equal Protection • Establishment • Exceptions • Ex post facto • Extradition • Free Exercise • Fugitive Slave • Full Faith and Credit • General Welfare • Guarantee • Impeachment • Ineligibility • Militia • Natural–born citizen • Necessary and Proper • No Religious Test • Origination • Postal • Presentment • Privileges and Immunities • Privileges or Immunities • Speech or Debate • Supremacy • Suspension • Takings • Taxing and Spending • Territorial • Title of Nobility • Treaty • Trial by Jury • Vesting • War Powers
Interpretation Theory • Concurrent powers • Congressional enforcement • Double jeopardy • Dormant Commerce Clause • Enumerated powers • Executive privilege • Incorporation of the Bill of Rights • Judicial review • Nondelegation doctrine • Preemption • Saxbe fix • Separation of church and state • Separation of powers • Unitary executive theory
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I
Note:Macon Georgia Law Enforcement are spreading Slander and lies throughout the Macon Georgia general public using their family and friend’s-Intern’s-Partner’s and Stakeholder’s but I guess the main reason for them wishing to focus on the physical abuse which I endured a child under the age of 18 years old for the Sexual Abuse of a Mnor a ward of the court under age 12 which the are also a party to the crime of Unregistered sex Offender’s along with the other’s !
PERSONAS IN UNIFORM: POLICE OFFICERS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
