The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." An Indiana man is testing the excessive fines rule by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. The problem? The high court has never held that the "excessive fines" clause applies to the states.
If the police want to track you through your cellphone's location history, should they have to get a warrant?
The U.S. Supreme Court has just heard arguments in a case involving emails Microsoft stores on servers in Ireland. In a 2013 drug trafficking case, Drug Enforcement Administration investigators sought the emails using a warrant authorized by the 1986 Stored Communications Act.
Louisiana death penalty defendant Robert McCoy insists on his innocence in the crime of murdering his mother-in-law, her husband and her 17-year-old grandson. However, there is substantial evidence against him, including claims that the victim's cellphone and the gun used to commit the crime were found in a car McCoy was riding in. There was an incriminating 911 recording, too, and other evidence.
When appellate attorneys for a Georgia man, Keith Tharpe, found evidence that one or more of his jurors had been racist, they hoped to show that racism affected the outcome of the trial. They tried to bring a habeas corpus petition to get the man's conviction or sentence overturned because the process that resulted in the man's conviction was unfair.
In the federal justice system, most criminal sentences are determined by formulas in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The guidelines are determined by an agency called the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Digital rights advocates are criticizing the telecom industry's silence on one of the great controversies of our day: whether police need a warrant to track people's location via their cellphones. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case on the issue on Nov. 29.
After a panel of federal judges ruled that the 1986 Stored Communications Act does not apply outside the United States, the Trump Administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
One of the things courts value most is finality. Once a dispute has been resolved, courts are loath to start digging into the process of resolving the dispute -- and this has traditionally led to some pernicious consequences, even without ill intent.
Suppose you were wrongfully convicted of a crime, and as part of your conviction you were required to pay court costs and restitution to your alleged victim. Once your wrongful conviction was overturned, you should get that money back, shouldn't you?