Mostrando títulos en Sistemas Judiciales

A provocative examination of race, gun laws, and violence that exposes how the state of Florida bungled the Trayvon Martin case through new interviews and revelations about the trial. Suspicion Nation expertly captures the state of a country conflicted not only about the Trayvon Martin injustice but divided over issues of race, violence, and gun legislation.

In 1945, Erle Stanley Gardner, noted attorney and author of the popular Perry Mason mysteries, was contacted by an overwhelmed California public defender who believed his doomed client was innocent. William Marvin Lindley had been convicted of the rape and murder of a young girl along the banks of the Yuba River, and was awaiting execution at San Quentin. After reviewing the case, Gardner agreed to help - it seemed the fate of the "Red-Headed Killer" hinged on the testimony of a colorblind witness.

John Marshall (1755 - 1835) was arguably the most important judicial figure in American history. As the fourth chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1801 to 1835, he helped move the Court from the fringes of power to the epicenter of constitutional government. His great opinions in cases like Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland are still part of the working discourse of constitutional law in America.

In January 1982, an elderly white widow was found brutally murdered in the small town of Greenwood, South Carolina. Police immediately arrested Edward Lee Elmore, a semiliterate, mentally retarded black man with no previous felony record. His only connection to the victim was having cleaned her gutters and windows, but barely ninety days after the victim’s body was found, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Elmore had been on death row for eleven years when a young attorney named Diana Holt first learned of his case.

In this engaging volume, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson argues that America's most brilliant legal minds have launched a set of cosmic constitutional theories that, for all their value, are undermining self-governance. Judge Wilkinson calls for a plainer, simpler, self-disciplined commitment to judicial restraint and democratic governance, a course that alas may be impossible so long as the cosmic constitutionalists so dominate contemporary legal thought.

One promise of democracy is the right of every citizen to vote. And yet, from our founding, strong political forces were determined to limit that right. The Supreme Court, Alexander Hamilton wrote, would protect the weak against this very sort of tyranny. Still, as On Account of Race forcefully demonstrates, through the better part of American history the Court has instead been a protector of white rule. And complex threats against the right to vote persist even today.

After spending almost 20 years in city courtrooms reporting for the ABC on some of the country’s highest profile cases, in The Outback Court Reporter, Jamelle Wells takes you into our country courtrooms, from the grand sandstone edifices of Cobar and Grafton to the repurposed community halls and police stations in outback Queensland and the Northern Territory – introducing you to the court staff, the witnesses and the accused, in cases that shock, captivate and divide communities.

Updated Fifth Edition includes decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Citizens United, gun control cases and some of the most absurd rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Material Law, distinguished scholar John Brigham focuses on the places where law and material life intersect, and how law creates and alters our social reality. Brigham looks at an eclectic group of bodies and things - from maps and territories and trends in courthouse architecture to a woman's womb and a judge's body - to make connections between the material and the legal.

On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court released two interlocked abortion decisions overturning the laws of all the individual states. Only one of the decisions, Roe v. Wade, tends to get much media attention, and it is popularly said that it grants a "woman's right to choose". But Justice Blackmun is in several places very adamant: Though it had been explicitly sought, he was not granting to women the "right to choose". In Doe v. Bolton, the second and often unexamined companion decision, Blackmun is explicit. The right he is granting is to the doctor.

When two parties meet in court, the outcome is rarely preordained. Judges must figure out who wins and who loses by analyzing the facts of the case before them and applying the legal principles of cases that have come before. How Would You Rule? brings that experience alive by presenting you with the critical facts and rules in 31 of the law's most interesting cases and inviting you to test your legal wits and sharpen your legal judgment by figuring out how these challenging cases should be decided.

After spending almost 20 years in city courtrooms reporting for the ABC on some of the country's highest profile cases, Wells takes you into our country courtrooms, from the grand sandstone edifices of Cobar and Grafton to the repurposed community halls and police stations in outback Queensland the Northern Territory – introducing you to the court staff – the solicitors, prosecutors, magistrates, witnesses and the accused, in cases that shock, captivate and divide communities.

Seven minutes after President Obama put his signature to a landmark national health care insurance program, a lawyer in the office of Florida GOP attorney general Bill McCollum hit a computer key, sparking a legal challenge to the new law that would eventually reach the nation’s highest court. Health care is only the most visible and recent front in a battle over the meaning and scope of the U.S. Constitution. The battleground is the Supreme Court, and one of the most skilled, insightful, and trenchant of its observers takes us close up to watch it in action.

For two hundred years, the constitutionality of capital punishment had been axiomatic. But in 1962, Justice Arthur Goldberg and his clerk Alan Dershowitz dared to suggest otherwise, launching an underfunded band of civil rights attorneys on a quixotic crusade. In 1972, in a most unlikely victory, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s death penalty law in Furman v. Georgia.

The first geofence warrant was issued in 2016. By 2021, Google was responding to 11,000 geofence warrant requests per year from officers wanting a list of cell phones at a crime scene at the time a crime was being committed. This new aspect of Fourth Amendment constitutional law is exciting and complex. If you are a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, criminal defense lawyer, judge, or citizen who cares about the constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, you need to listen to this book.

Have you ever wondered if the police employ time machines in their investigations? Do you know why it’s a bad idea to rent a car from Chompy? Have you heard of the pancakes and syrup defense to a charge of robbery? The answers to these questions and more can be found in Time Cops and Other Tales from the Criminal Justice Factory, the memoirs of the author’s 30 year career in criminal law. The stories herein are variously humorous, sad, provocative, surprising, but they are all, entertaining.

Collaborative divorce is an option for divorce outside of court that minimizes conflict, improves family relations and co-parenting, give couples more say in the outcome of their settlement and prevents the costs and stress associated with a court trial. However, for collaborative divorce to be effective a thorough understanding of the process, the misconceptions, and risks involved are needed to ensure a kinder, more collaborative outcome.

Israel has been an experiment in democracy in the Middle East for 75 years. The Israeli Supreme Court has been the most successful branch of government in Israel, taking the lead in protecting the rights of minorities, Arabs, Ethiopian Jews and others. The High Court has also opened the doors to most challenges to government authority. Unlike the United States, most citizens groups have standing to challenge government action, including the location of the border wall built between Israel and the West Bank. Israeli justices are required to retire at age 70 ensuring turnover on the Supreme ...

Ottobre 2020: per la prima volta nella storia della magistratura un ex membro del Csm viene radiato dall'ordine giudiziario. Chi è Luca Palamara? Una carriera brillante avviata con la presidenza dell'Associazione nazionale magistrati a trentanove anni. A quarantacinque viene eletto nel Consiglio superiore della magistratura e, alla guida della corrente di centro, Unità per la Costituzione, contribuisce a determinare le decisioni dell'organo di autogoverno dei giudici.

The concept of habeas corpus - literally, to receive and hold the body - empowers courts to protect the right of prisoners to know the basis on which they are being held by the government and grant prisoners their freedom when they are held unlawfully. It is no wonder that habeas corpus has long been considered essential to freedom.