context stringlengths 58 1.13k | citation_a dict | citation_b dict | case_id int64 475 12.5M | label stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
But this argument presumes the very conclusion that is at issue in this case--namely, that the NYPD can prohibit unrecognized groups, including the LOA, from marching in parades in uniform and behind their organization banners. The danger of a prior restraint, as opposed to ex post disciplinary action, is precisely tha... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[U]nlike an adverse action taken in response to actual speech, [an ex ante restriction] chills potential speech before it happens.\"",
"sentence": "See, e.g., NTEU, 513 U.S. at 481, 115 S.Ct. 1003 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and di... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "136 F.3d 131, 131",
"parenthetical": "\"We consider prior restraints to be particularly abhorrent to the First Amendment in part because they vest in government agencies the power to determine important constitutional questions properly vested in the judiciary.\"",
"senten... | 11,555,327 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "470 U.S. 856, 864-65",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.\"",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a post-conviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States,... | 5,651,253 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a post-conviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States,... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.\"",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate co... | 5,651,253 | b |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a post-conviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States,... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.\"",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate co... | 5,651,253 | b |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "523 U.S. 1, 12",
"parenthetical": "presuming significant collateral consequences in the context of criminal convictions",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sen... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a post-conviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States,... | 5,651,253 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a post-conviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States,... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "presuming significant collateral consequences in the context of criminal convictions",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has p... | 5,651,253 | b |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "presuming significant collateral consequences in the context of criminal convictions",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has p... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a post-conviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States,... | 5,651,253 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "470 U.S. 856, 864-65",
"parenthetical": "\"[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.\"",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a postconviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States, ... | 4,102,127 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.\"",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate co... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a postconviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States, ... | 4,102,127 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored.\"",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate co... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a postconviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States, ... | 4,102,127 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "523 U.S. 1, 12",
"parenthetical": "presuming significant collateral consequences in the context of criminal convictions",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sen... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a postconviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States, ... | 4,102,127 | a |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a postconviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States, ... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "presuming significant collateral consequences in the context of criminal convictions",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has p... | 4,102,127 | b |
It is probable that vacating Alaimalo's convictions for importation of methamphetamine will not reduce the length of his confinement; vacating these convictions, however, removes the possibility that he will be subject to their adverse collateral consequences. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "presuming significant collateral consequences in the context of criminal convictions",
"sentence": "See Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985) (“[A] separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has p... | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "393 F.2d 731, 732",
"parenthetical": "\"Coram nobis must be kept available as a postconviction remedy to prevent 'manifest injustice' even where the removal of a prior conviction will have little present effect on the petitioner.\"",
"sentence": "Cf. Holloway v. United States, ... | 4,102,127 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "391 F.2d 922, 923",
"parenthetical": "affirming lawfulness of officers' entry into front room of defendant's home where \"the purpose of the entry was to engage in the conversation the agents had been seeking\" and defendant knew of such purpose and consented to entry",
"senten... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "327 F.2d 301, 303-304",
"parenthetical": "defendant's eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, though not search",
"sentence": "Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303-304 (9th Cir. 1964) (defendant’s eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, ... | 3,832,426 | b |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "327 F.2d 301, 303-304",
"parenthetical": "defendant's eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, though not search",
"sentence": "Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303-304 (9th Cir. 1964) (defendant’s eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, ... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "affirming lawfulness of officers' entry into front room of defendant's home where \"the purpose of the entry was to engage in the conversation the agents had been seeking\" and defendant knew of such purpose and consented to entry",
"sentence": "See Manni... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "93 Ohio App. 3d 378, 382",
"parenthetical": "third party may consent to entry but not to search",
"sentence": "See Manni v. United States, 391 F.2d 922, 923 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 873 (1968) (affirming lawfulness of officers’ entry into front room of defendant’s hom... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "327 F.2d 301, 303-304",
"parenthetical": "defendant's eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, though not search",
"sentence": "Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303-304 (9th Cir. 1964) (defendant’s eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, ... | 3,832,426 | b |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "97 Ohio App. 3d 687, 690",
"parenthetical": "\"that where the intent of the officers was not to conduct a search, but only to question a resident, the consent of a third party to enter the house should not be held to the same standard as the consent of a third party to a warrant-... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "327 F.2d 301, 303-304",
"parenthetical": "defendant's eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, though not search",
"sentence": "Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303-304 (9th Cir. 1964) (defendant’s eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, ... | 3,832,426 | b |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "315 Pa. Super. 236, 240-241",
"parenthetical": "evidence not suppressed where guest admitted police to apartment, police were not attempting to secure permission to search apartment but rather were responding to complaint to determine occupants' well-being, and search was conduct... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "327 F.2d 301, 303-304",
"parenthetical": "defendant's eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, though not search",
"sentence": "Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303-304 (9th Cir. 1964) (defendant’s eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, ... | 3,832,426 | b |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "327 F.2d 301, 303-304",
"parenthetical": "defendant's eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, though not search",
"sentence": "Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303-304 (9th Cir. 1964) (defendant’s eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, ... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no search or seizure when police questioned defendant at door of sleeping compartment in train",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 949-950, 954 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) (no search or seizure when polic... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "327 F.2d 301, 303-304",
"parenthetical": "defendant's eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, though not search",
"sentence": "Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303-304 (9th Cir. 1964) (defendant’s eight year old daughter could consent to police entry, ... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 684, 689-693",
"parenthetical": "officer's continuous knocking on hotel room door around 11:00 p.m. for over three minutes and asking defendant to open door to talk constituted an unconstitutional seizure",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, ... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "391 F.2d 922, 923",
"parenthetical": "affirming lawfulness of officers' entry into front room of defendant's home where \"the purpose of the entry was to engage in the conversation the agents had been seeking\" and defendant knew of such purpose and consented to entry",
"senten... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no search or seizure when police questioned defendant at door of sleeping compartment in train",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 949-950, 954 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) (no search or seizure when polic... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 684, 689-693",
"parenthetical": "officer's continuous knocking on hotel room door around 11:00 p.m. for over three minutes and asking defendant to open door to talk constituted an unconstitutional seizure",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, ... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "391 F.2d 922, 923",
"parenthetical": "affirming lawfulness of officers' entry into front room of defendant's home where \"the purpose of the entry was to engage in the conversation the agents had been seeking\" and defendant knew of such purpose and consented to entry",
"senten... | 3,832,426 | b |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "affirming lawfulness of officers' entry into front room of defendant's home where \"the purpose of the entry was to engage in the conversation the agents had been seeking\" and defendant knew of such purpose and consented to entry",
"sentence": "See Manni... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no search or seizure when police questioned defendant at door of sleeping compartment in train",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 949-950, 954 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) (no search or seizure when polic... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "affirming lawfulness of officers' entry into front room of defendant's home where \"the purpose of the entry was to engage in the conversation the agents had been seeking\" and defendant knew of such purpose and consented to entry",
"sentence": "See Manni... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 684, 689-693",
"parenthetical": "officer's continuous knocking on hotel room door around 11:00 p.m. for over three minutes and asking defendant to open door to talk constituted an unconstitutional seizure",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, ... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "93 Ohio App. 3d 378, 382",
"parenthetical": "third party may consent to entry but not to search",
"sentence": "See Manni v. United States, 391 F.2d 922, 923 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 873 (1968) (affirming lawfulness of officers’ entry into front room of defendant’s hom... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no search or seizure when police questioned defendant at door of sleeping compartment in train",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 949-950, 954 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) (no search or seizure when polic... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "93 Ohio App. 3d 378, 382",
"parenthetical": "third party may consent to entry but not to search",
"sentence": "See Manni v. United States, 391 F.2d 922, 923 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 873 (1968) (affirming lawfulness of officers’ entry into front room of defendant’s hom... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 684, 689-693",
"parenthetical": "officer's continuous knocking on hotel room door around 11:00 p.m. for over three minutes and asking defendant to open door to talk constituted an unconstitutional seizure",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, ... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no search or seizure when police questioned defendant at door of sleeping compartment in train",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 949-950, 954 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) (no search or seizure when polic... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "97 Ohio App. 3d 687, 690",
"parenthetical": "\"that where the intent of the officers was not to conduct a search, but only to question a resident, the consent of a third party to enter the house should not be held to the same standard as the consent of a third party to a warrant-... | 3,832,426 | b |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "97 Ohio App. 3d 687, 690",
"parenthetical": "\"that where the intent of the officers was not to conduct a search, but only to question a resident, the consent of a third party to enter the house should not be held to the same standard as the consent of a third party to a warrant-... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 684, 689-693",
"parenthetical": "officer's continuous knocking on hotel room door around 11:00 p.m. for over three minutes and asking defendant to open door to talk constituted an unconstitutional seizure",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, ... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "315 Pa. Super. 236, 240-241",
"parenthetical": "evidence not suppressed where guest admitted police to apartment, police were not attempting to secure permission to search apartment but rather were responding to complaint to determine occupants' well-being, and search was conduct... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "no search or seizure when police questioned defendant at door of sleeping compartment in train",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, 949-950, 954 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) (no search or seizure when polic... | 3,832,426 | a |
"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably, at high noon, to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of an... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "315 Pa. Super. 236, 240-241",
"parenthetical": "evidence not suppressed where guest admitted police to apartment, police were not attempting to secure permission to search apartment but rather were responding to complaint to determine occupants' well-being, and search was conduct... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "108 F.3d 684, 689-693",
"parenthetical": "officer's continuous knocking on hotel room door around 11:00 p.m. for over three minutes and asking defendant to open door to talk constituted an unconstitutional seizure",
"sentence": "See also United States v. Kim, 27 F.3d 947, ... | 3,832,426 | a |
Coastal manufactured and supplied the GFRC panels that comprised the "skin" of the St. George. Suppliers of building components have been determined to be protected ac tors entitled to protection by the repose provision of SS 2B only where the role of supplier was incidental and the actor's primary function was to prov... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "412 Mass. 636, 642",
"parenthetical": "defendant protected by SS 2B where its role of supplying bleachers was incidental to primary function of performing particularized construction services in assembling and installing bleachers",
"sentence": "See McDonough v. Marr Scaffoldin... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "SS 2B protection extended to supplier of lift who provided individual expertise and particularized services, collaborated in design of lift, supervised installation, and specified and supervised building modifications",
"sentence": "See also Rosario ... | 1,250,653 | a |
That exclusion sufficed in this case to vindicate the purpose of the rule. In so ruling, we leave open the question whether suppression would be necessary and proper at the sentencing phase where it is shown that the police acted egregiously, e.g., by undertaking a warrantless search for the very purpose of obtaining e... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "402 F.2d 599, 611-13",
"parenthetical": "evidence excluded from sentencing consideration when search conducted without a warrant was \"blatantly illegal,\" and court found that police needed to be deterred from making illegal searches under circumstances involved",
"sentence": ... | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "522 F.2d 1019, 1022-25",
"parenthetical": "limiting holding of Verdugo to cases in which use at sentencing of illegally seized evidence \"would provide a substantial incentive for unconstitutional searches and seizures \"",
"sentence": "See Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2... | 3,491,307 | a |
That exclusion sufficed in this case to vindicate the purpose of the rule. In so ruling, we leave open the question whether suppression would be necessary and proper at the sentencing phase where it is shown that the police acted egregiously, e.g., by undertaking a warrantless search for the very purpose of obtaining e... | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "522 F.2d 1019, 1022-25",
"parenthetical": "limiting holding of Verdugo to cases in which use at sentencing of illegally seized evidence \"would provide a substantial incentive for unconstitutional searches and seizures \"",
"sentence": "See Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "evidence excluded from sentencing consideration when search conducted without a warrant was \"blatantly illegal,\" and court found that police needed to be deterred from making illegal searches under circumstances involved",
"sentence": "See Verdugo v. Un... | 3,491,307 | b |
That exclusion sufficed in this case to vindicate the purpose of the rule. In so ruling, we leave open the question whether suppression would be necessary and proper at the sentencing phase where it is shown that the police acted egregiously, e.g., by undertaking a warrantless search for the very purpose of obtaining e... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "evidence excluded from sentencing consideration when search conducted without a warrant was \"blatantly illegal,\" and court found that police needed to be deterred from making illegal searches under circumstances involved",
"sentence": "See Verdugo v. Un... | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "522 F.2d 1019, 1022-25",
"parenthetical": "limiting holding of Verdugo to cases in which use at sentencing of illegally seized evidence \"would provide a substantial incentive for unconstitutional searches and seizures \"",
"sentence": "See Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2... | 3,491,307 | a |
That exclusion sufficed in this case to vindicate the purpose of the rule. In so ruling, we leave open the question whether suppression would be necessary and proper at the sentencing phase where it is shown that the police acted egregiously, e.g., by undertaking a warrantless search for the very purpose of obtaining e... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "evidence excluded from sentencing consideration when search conducted without a warrant was \"blatantly illegal,\" and court found that police needed to be deterred from making illegal searches under circumstances involved",
"sentence": "See Verdugo v. Un... | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "522 F.2d 1019, 1022-25",
"parenthetical": "limiting holding of Verdugo to cases in which use at sentencing of illegally seized evidence \"would provide a substantial incentive for unconstitutional searches and seizures \"",
"sentence": "See Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2... | 3,491,307 | a |
Moreover, because an injured employee has been legislatively granted, in mandatory language, the unmitigated right to select and change his or her primary care provider during the course of treatment for an injury, we conclude that this right is not dependent upon a showing of medical necessity. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "7 So.3d 556, 560-61",
"parenthetical": "stating \"[u]nder the managed care statute, the managed care plan must include a provision for the employee's selection of a primary care provider,\" and declaring that such right is \"similar and parallel\" to right to change in physi... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that statute providing injured employee mandatory right to change of physician during \"the course of treatment\" does not require employee to demonstrate medical necessity of change",
"sentence": "See Nunez v. Pulte Homes, Inc., 985 So.2d 695 ... | 7,025,893 | b |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2008 WI 52, ¶ 22",
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analy... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2009 WI 27, ¶ 22",
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 ... | 4,021,955 | a |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2008 WI 52, ¶ 22",
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analy... | 4,021,955 | b |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2008 WI 52, ¶ 22",
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analy... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"... | 4,021,955 | a |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"); see a... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2009 WI 27, ¶ 22",
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 ... | 4,021,955 | a |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"); see a... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"... | 4,021,955 | a |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"); see a... | 4,021,955 | b |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"); see a... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "2009 WI 27, ¶ 22",
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 ... | 4,021,955 | a |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"); see a... | 4,021,955 | b |
P 14. In addition to the language of the statute, "scope, context, and purpose are perfectly relevant to a plain-meaning interpretation of an unambiguous statute." | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"A review of statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis.\"); see a... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"By analyzing the changes the legislature has made over the course of several years, we may be assisted in arriving at the meaning of a statute.\"",
"sentence": "Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, ¶ 22, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581 (\"... | 4,021,955 | a |
In reaching its conclusions on "fair valuation," the court may adopt the asset values of one party or the other, or the court may choose its own fair valuation figure after weighing all the evidence. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "78 F.3d 30, 35",
"parenthetical": "stating that if possible, insolvency determinations should be based on seasonable appraisals or expert testimony, but that \"[b]ecause the value of property varies with time and circumstances, the finder of fact must be free to arrive at the 'fa... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "110 F.2d 468, 470",
"parenthetical": "upholding \"middle course\" that court took with respect to value of assets and liabilities",
"sentence": "See, e.g., In re Roblin Indus. Inc., 78 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir.1996) (stating that if possible, insolvency determinations should be... | 6,052,160 | a |
We agree with the government and do not reach the merits of Reinke's claim because the state court applied an independent and adequate state procedural ground in ruling that the claim was procedurally defaulted. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "796 F.2d 1103, 1106",
"parenthetical": "stating that failure to comply with Arizona's contemporaneous objection rule bars litigation of the claim in federal courts absent a showing of cause and prejudice",
"sentence": "See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. ... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "501 U.S. 722, 750",
"parenthetical": "holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice",
"sentence": "See... | 142,084 | b |
We agree with the government and do not reach the merits of Reinke's claim because the state court applied an independent and adequate state procedural ground in ruling that the claim was procedurally defaulted. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice",
"sentence": "See Coleman v. Tho... | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "796 F.2d 1103, 1106",
"parenthetical": "stating that failure to comply with Arizona's contemporaneous objection rule bars litigation of the claim in federal courts absent a showing of cause and prejudice",
"sentence": "See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. ... | 142,084 | a |
We agree with the government and do not reach the merits of Reinke's claim because the state court applied an independent and adequate state procedural ground in ruling that the claim was procedurally defaulted. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "796 F.2d 1103, 1106",
"parenthetical": "stating that failure to comply with Arizona's contemporaneous objection rule bars litigation of the claim in federal courts absent a showing of cause and prejudice",
"sentence": "See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. ... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice",
"sentence": "See Coleman v. Tho... | 142,084 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "152 F.3d 381, 392-93",
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to mak... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "837 S.W.2d 503, 514",
"parenthetical": "\"the right of allocution in Missouri does not extend to addressing the jury\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn state... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "521 Pa. 188, 212-13",
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "345 N.C. 254, 289",
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "152 F.3d 381, 392-93",
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to mak... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "837 S.W.2d 503, 514",
"parenthetical": "\"the right of allocution in Missouri does not extend to addressing the jury\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn state... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "521 Pa. 188, 212-13",
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "152 F.3d 381, 392-93",
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to mak... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "837 S.W.2d 503, 514",
"parenthetical": "\"the right of allocution in Missouri does not extend to addressing the jury\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn state... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "521 Pa. 188, 212-13",
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "152 F.3d 381, 392-93",
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to mak... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "837 S.W.2d 503, 514",
"parenthetical": "\"the right of allocution in Missouri does not extend to addressing the jury\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn state... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "521 Pa. 188, 212-13",
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "152 F.3d 381, 392-93",
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to mak... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to make statement or to ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "837 S.W.2d 503, 514",
"parenthetical": "\"the right of allocution in Missouri does not extend to addressing the jury\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn state... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "521 Pa. 188, 212-13",
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in ... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | 3,593,641 | a |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "concluding that legislature had abrogated common-law rules governing capital cases by replacing them with statutory scheme and finding \"no reason in law or logic\" why defendants should be permitted to make unsworn statements to juries in capital sentencin... | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"a defendant does not have a . . . statutory . . . or common law right to make unsworn statements of fact to the jury at the conclusion of a capital sentencing proceeding\"",
"sentence": "State v. Perkins, 345 N.C. 254, 289, 481 S.E.2d 25 (“a defen... | 3,593,641 | b |
Our review of those authorities reveals that several courts have concluded that there is no statutory or common-law right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "919 P.2d 7, 22",
"parenthetical": "in capital case, court concluded that \"there is no statutory . . . [or] common-law . . . right of a defendant to make a plea for mercy or otherwise address his sentencing jury, in addition to closing argument by counsel\"",
"sentence": ... | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "152 F.3d 381, 392-93",
"parenthetical": "concluding that trial court did not violate former rule 32 [c] [3] [C] of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which required court, before imposing sentence, to address defendant personally and to determine whether defendant wished to mak... | 3,593,641 | a |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.