翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ South Carolina State Guard ・ South Carolina State Hospital ・ South Carolina State House ・ South Carolina State Museum ・ South Carolina State Transport Police Division ・ South Carolina State University ・ South Carolina State University School of Law ・ South Carolina statistical areas ・ South Carolina Stingrays ・ South Carolina Supreme Court ・ South Carolina Synod ・ South Carolina Technical College System ・ South Carolina Terminal Company ・ South Carolina v. Baker ・ South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. ・ South Carolina v. Gathers ・ South Carolina v. Katzenbach ・ South Carolina v. North Carolina ・ South Carolina Warriors ・ South Carolina Western Extension Railway ・ South Carolina Western Railway ・ South Carolina Western Railway Station ・ South Carolina wine ・ South Carolina Wing Civil Air Patrol ・ South Carolina World War II Army Airfields ・ South Carolina's 1st congressional district ・ South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 1825 ・ South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 1971 ・ South Carolina's 1st congressional district special election, 2013 ・ South Carolina's 2nd congressional district 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 South Carolina v. Gathers ： ウィキペディア英語版 South Carolina v. Gathers ''South Carolina v. Gathers'', 490 U.S. 805 (1989) was a United States Supreme Court which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is only admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial if it directly relates to the 'circumstances of the crime'. This case was later overruled by the Supreme Court decision in ''Payne v. Tennessee'' 501 U.S. 808 (1991).〔Judgment is re-worded from the decision, ''q.v.'', (Supreme.Justia.com ). Retrieved October 31, 2012.〕 ==Reasoning== The Court held that their opinion in ''Booth v. Maryland'' left open the possibility that the kind of information contained in victim impact statements could be admissible if it "relate() directly to the circumstances of the crime." Though South Carolina asserted that such is the case here, the Brennan-led majority disagreed, holding the content of the cards at issue to be irrelevant to the "circumstances of the crime." Four Justices dissented: Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. 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「South Carolina v. Gathers」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.