1、1 120 S. Ct. 1479 (2000).2 Slip Op. No. 99-7000 (U.S. June 12, 2000).3 120 S. Ct. 727 (2000).4 120 S. Ct. 1479 (2000).Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20620July 6, 2000Capital Punishment: Summary of Supreme CourtDec
2、isions During the 1999-00 TermPaul Starett Wallace, Jr.Specialist in American Public LawAmerican Law DivisionSummaryWith the exception of the Supreme Courts ruling in Williams v. Taylor,1 the Courtdid not find any serious reversible error in the lower courts opinions reviewed during the1999-2000 ter
3、m that relate to capital punishment. In Ramdass v. Angelone,2 it wasdecided that a habeas corpus petitioner could not obtain relief from his death sentenceon the ground that the state courts should have taken a less technical approach todetermining whether he was entitled to have the penalty phase j
4、ury instructed that hewould be ineligible for parole if the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment.The state courts reasoned that because judgment had not been entered on one of thepetitioners convictions, he did not have three “strikes” for purposes of the states paroleineligibility law.
升级VIP 