On other due course of restrictions on the determination of the applicability of recidivist statutes to convicted defendants, see Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U.S. 443 ; Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 ; Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 ; Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 . Defendant was convicted in an inferior court docket of a misdemeanor. He had a right to a de novo trial in superior court, however when he exercised the right the prosecutor obtained a felony indictment based mostly upon the identical conduct. The distinction the Court attracts between this case and Bordenkircher and Goodwin is that of pretrial conduct, by which vindictiveness isn’t probably, and submit-trial conduct, by which vindictiveness is more doubtless and is not permitted. The distinction appears to represent very fantastic line-drawing, however it appears to be one the Court is dedicated to. U.S. at 317 , quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 416–17 .
Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 ; Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 . Establishing a right of access to regulation supplies, however, requires an individualized demonstration of an inmate having been hindered in efforts to pursue a legal claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (no requirement that the state “enable prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate successfully”). Justice Stevens, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer and in part by Justice Souter, concluded, “right here is not any cause to deny access to the evidence and there are lots of causes to provide it, not least of which is a fundamental concern in guaranteeing that justice has been carried out on this case.” Id. at 17.
Although the vitality of McMillan was put doubtful by Apprendi,McMillan was subsequently reaffirmed in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 . 1188 The decisive issue, then, was whether the statute required the state to prove past an inexpensive doubt each element of the offense. In Dixon, the prosecution had the burden of proving all elements of two federal firearms violations, one requiring a “willful” violation and the opposite requiring a “understanding” violation . Although establishing other types of mens rea (similar to “malicious intent”) may require that a prosecutor show that a defendant’s intent was without justification or excuse, the Court held that neither of the forms of mens rea at issue in Dixon contained such a requirement. Consequently, the burden of creating the protection of duress might be placed on the defendant without violating due course of. 1185 Rivera v. Delaware, 429 U.S. 877 , dismissing as not presenting a substantial federal query an attraction from a holding that Mullaney did not forestall a state from inserting on the defendant the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the proof. See Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 202–05 .
1240 See, e.g, Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 554, 561, 563 , where the Court required that earlier than a juvenile court docket decided to waive jurisdiction and switch a juvenile to an adult court it must maintain a hearing and allow defense counsel to look at the probation officer’s report which fashioned the premise for the courtroom’s determination. Kent was ambiguous whether or not it was based on statutory interpretation or constitutional analysis.
Sentencing In Federal Courts
Accord Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. ___, No. 10–8145, slip op. (prior inconsistent statements of sole eyewitness withheld from defendant; state lacked other proof adequate to sustain confidence in the verdict independently). See also Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 786 ; Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 ; Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (overturning rule that proof of third-get together guilt may be excluded if there’s strong forensic proof establishing defendant’s culpability).