No. 20-5562
IFP
Tags: aggravating-circumstances constitutional-amendments death-penalty eighth-amendment fourteenth-amendment hurst-v-florida judicial-panel jury-determination post-conviction-relief ring-v-arizona sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus Punishment
DueProcess FourthAmendment FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference:
2020-12-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Ring and Hurst, are violated when eligibility for the death penalty is asserted to be decided when a jury finds aggravating circumstances, but eligibility—in practice—is actually decided by a three-judge panel
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented is: Are the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Ring and Hurst, violated when eligibility for the death penalty is asserted to be decided when a jury finds aggravating circumstances, but eligibility—in practice—is actually decided by a three-judge panel? 1
Docket Entries
2020-12-07
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-04
Brief of respondent State of Nebraska in opposition filed.
2020-10-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 4, 2020.
2020-10-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 5, 2020 to November 4, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-08-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 5, 2020)
Attorneys
State of Nebraska
James D. Smith — Nebraska Department of Justice, Respondent
James D. Smith — Nebraska Department of Justice, Respondent