Shopping Bag

0 item(s) in cart/ total: $0    view cart
Free Instant Delivery  |  No Sales Tax
Home > Case Law > Criminal Evidenced & Procedure  >  Lockhart v. McCree
Lockhart v. McCree
Lockhart v. McCree Cartoons

Lockhart v. McCree

The constitution does not prohibit the removal for cause in a capital case of prospective jurors opposed to the death penalty and unable to impose it if necessary. Bifurcated trial.
Your Price: $10.00

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons

Williams v. New York
Williams v. New York
Imposition of death sentence for murder in the first degree is not void under due process clause solely because trial court considered additional information from probation department and other sources. Pre sentence investigaton.
North Carolina v. Pearce
North Carolina v. Pearce
In imposing new sentence upon defendant whose original sentence has been set aside, trial judge may consider events subsequent to first trial and may impose sentence that is greater or less than original sentence.
Downum v. United States
Downum v. United States
If an impaneled jury is discharged because the prosecution witness is unavailable, double jeopardy applies to bar the impaneling of a second jury and a new trial. Impanel.
Smith v. Texas
Smith v. Texas
See also similar holdings in Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman and Brewer v. Quarterman.
Oregon v. Elstad
Oregon v. Elstad
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine aplies to Fourth amendment, not Fifth Amendment; although Miranda requires the suppression of an un-warned admission, the admissibility of any subsequent statement turns on whether it was made voluntarily.
Sentencing Judges May Consider Various Factors
Sentencing Judges May Consider Various Factors
Kimbrough v. United States; Under Booker, the cocaine Guidelines, like all other Sentencing Guidelines, are advisory only.
Jurisdictional Defect
Jurisdictional Defect
United States v. Cotton; failure to state the amount of drugs in an indictment is not a jurisdictional defect.
Trial Strategy
Trial Strategy
Wiggins v. Smith; trial strategy must be supported by reasonable investigation.
Right to Counsel Class Action
Right to Counsel Class Action
Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York; class action permitted as state must provide legal representation to indigent criminal defendants at all critical stages of the proceedings against them.
Exigent Circumstances Rule
Exigent Circumstances Rule
Kentucky v. King; The exigent-circumstances rule applies only when the police do not gain entry to the premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Cheek Swab
Cheek Swab
Maryland v. King; taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, is a legitimate police booking procedure and is reasonable under the Four Amendment. DNA cheek swab.
Strickland
Strickland
Padilla v. Kentucky; a criminal defense attorney fails to provide effective assistance if the attorney misleads a noncitizen client regarding the removal consequences of a conviction. Strickland Sixth Amendment right to counsel.