Skip to comments.Supreme Court to Revisit Old Cases
Posted on 05/15/2006 11:35:22 AM PDT by new yorker 77
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether old cases are affected by a 2-year-old ruling reiterating that the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront his accusers.
At the time it decided Crawford v. Washington, a major criminal law case, the high court did not say if its ruling was retroactive.
Multiple inmates have brought appeals claiming that like Michael Crawford, their Sixth Amendment constitutional rights were violated.
The high court had thrown out Crawford's conviction for assaulting an acquaintance he had accused of trying to rape his wife. His wife, Sylvia Crawford, did not testify at Michael Crawford's trial, but prosecutors played a tape they claimed showed her story did not match his.
The case that justices agreed to hear later this year was brought by the state of Nevada, which wants the court to reinstate a 1988 child molestation conviction.
An appeals court had said that statements a 6-year-old girl made to police should not have been used at her stepfather's trial because she did not testify. Marvin Bockting's lawyers did not have a chance to cross-examine the girl.
The case is Whorton v. Bockting, 05-595.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
I still think the tomato should be classified as a vegetable.
Forget fruits and vegitables. Grain is where it's at and the matter of tastes great or less filling has never been resolved... not to mention the Bud Bowl.
I think Eminent Domain and Campaign Finance can be classified as Abortions.
I heard that it isn't fruit, but a berry.
Unlike a strawberry which isn't a berry, but is a rose.
I thought that which had seed was fruit. That which had root was veg.
Strawbeey has seed, yes?
Please enlighten and TIA!
There might be legal precedent! Of course, Landsnatching . . . land, land, Land, see Snatch. Ah, Haley vs. United States. Haley: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!
About that Eminent Domain decision, has anyone ever persued the humped-up, liberal, senile Justice Stevens' remark that he personally disagreed with it but still voted in favor of it?
It probably is a fruit, but not a berry, and it is a rose.
I've heard about this from those in legal circles. It was a major reversal of laws passed over the past two or three decades permitting and extending the use of hearsay testimony.
You might be interested in these two cases:
Finally, the government argues that the Gun Control Act, of which section 922(o) is a part, should not be viewed as repealing the National Firearms Act, citing a provision of the Gun Control Act passed in 1968 to that effect. The court in Rock Island Armory rejected the same government argument, observing that "the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986). Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986 and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis."
In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED
You'll note that FedGov never appealed these decisions, which basically strike down the 1934, 1968, and 1986 GCAs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.