0
The facts of the Breed v Jones 1975 court case was about a robbery in which Breed was tried in the Los Angeles juvenile court and was charged with the original charge and two other theft or robbery. He later went for an appeal in the Supreme Court ruled that he was placed in a double jeopardy and that waiver cannot occur after jeopardy occurs. In Payton v New York, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the police entered the homes of Mr. Payton and Mr. Riddick (defendants), without any warrant and subsequently destroyed all evidence in their homes. Reference: www.ncjrs.gov
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ezra
Fran
DevinAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What are facts about the 5th amendement?
the fifth amendment means no person shall be forced to speak upon a case without volunteering and any person can not be subject for the same crime twice.
What was the US Supreme Court case Kent v US about?
Kent v US 1966 is a famous court case involving juveniles and their rights. The decision and outcome of the case included the facts that: 1) there must always be a hearing in the matter of waiver of jurisdiction 2) there must always be assistance of counsel in a hearing of waiver of jurisdiction 3) the plaintiff's counsel must have access to all social records If the judge determines that a waiver of transfer is the right answer there must be a statement of facts based on a full investigation, including a statement of the judge's reasons for the waiver. A waiver of jurisdiction is basically the decision to allow a juvenile to be tried as an adult in criminal court.
What was the courts decision on the Colorado republican federal campaign committee and Douglas Jones treasurer petitioners v federal election commission?
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee And Douglas Jones, Treasurer v. Federal Election Commission was a 1996 Supreme Court case dealing with campaign finance. The Court vacated the judgment of the lower court and remanded it, sending it back for further review and consideration of additional evidence.
Can the Indiana Supreme Court decide a case based upon facts identical to those in a case before the Illinois Court of Appeals?
Yes, they MAY choose to follow IL's precedent. However, since they are both separate court systems of individual states, they may or may not follow one another's precedents in deciding cases, even if the situations of the cases is identical.
Are courts more likely to block an enlightened consensus with their adherence to outdated principles or to protect the politically weak from oppressive majorities?
Enlightenment does not happen by consensus and principles do not become "outdated" otherwise they would not be principles and a basic principle of the Courts is to protect the politically weak from oppressive majorities. The courts may or may not block a progressive idea that some consensus views as enlightened or they may not. All most all court rulings are based on the very narrow facts of the case. Thus, if a court upholds a progressive idea that some consensus views as enlightened they did so, most likely, because of the facts of the case.
