翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Smith v Land and House Property Corp ・ Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd ・ Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd ・ Smith v Parsons ・ Smith v Smith ・ Smith v. Allwright ・ Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County ・ Smith v. Bolles ・ Smith v. California ・ Smith v. Commissioner ・ Smith v. Doe ・ Smith v. Goguen ・ Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. ・ Smith v. Maryland ・ Smith v. Pilots Union ・ Smith v. Spisak ・ Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC ・ Smith v. Texas ・ Smith v. Texas (2007) ・ Smith v. United States ・ Smith v. Van Gorkom ・ Smith Valley, Indiana ・ Smith Valley, Nevada ・ Smith Village, Oklahoma ・ Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School ・ Smith Volcano ・ Smith W. Brookhart ・ Smith Warehouse ・ Smith Westerns ・ Smith Wigglesworth Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Smith v. Spisak ： ウィキペディア英語版 Smith v. Spisak ''Smith v. Spisak'', was a United States Supreme Court decision on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It further examined issues of previous court decisions on jury instructions and the effectiveness of counsel. ==Background== Frank Spisak Jr. was convicted of three murders and two attempted murders at Cleveland State University. In 1983 a jury sentenced him to death. His claims were denied by the State of Ohio in direct appeal and to the Ohio Supreme Court stating that his claim was "not well-taken on the basis of our review of the record". Spisak filed for habeas corpus relief in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. First he argued that the jury instructions at the penalty phase of trial unconstitutionally required the jury to consider in mitigation only factors that the jury unanimously found mitigating (violating Mills v. Maryland). Second he argued that he had suffered significant harm because his original counsel had given an inadequate closing argument during sentencing (violating Strickland v. Washington). The District Court subsequently denied his petition. The petition was accepted on appeal to the Sixth Circuit and blocked the State from executing Spisak. The State of Ohio appealed to the Supreme Court. In Hudson v. Spisak (552 U.S. 945 (2007)) the Court remanded the case back to the Sixth Circuit and ordered the appeals court to reconsider in light of two recent cases Carey v. Musladin and Schriro v. Landrigan. The Sixth Court of Appeals again reinstated its earlier opinion. Again the State appealed and the Supreme Court granted review. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Smith v. Spisak」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.