翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ United States v. Sandoval ・ United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. ・ United States v. Scheffer ・ United States v. Scheinberg ・ United States v. Schoon ・ United States v. Schooner Peggy ・ United States v. Schooner Sally ・ United States v. Schwimmer ・ United States v. Screws ・ United States v. Seale ・ United States v. Seeger ・ United States v. Segui ・ United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc. ・ United States v. Shabani ・ United States v. Shi ・ United States v. Shipp ・ United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians ・ United States v. Shynkarenko ・ United States v. Simms ・ United States v. Singer Mfg. Co. ・ United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ・ United States v. Smith ・ United States v. Snider ・ United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. ・ United States v. Solon ・ United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n ・ United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. ・ United States v. Spearin ・ United States v. Sprague ・ United States v. Spy Factory, Inc. 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 United States v. Shipp ： ウィキペディア英語版 United States v. Shipp ''United States v. Shipp'', 203 U.S. 563,〔''U.S. v. Shipp'', 203 U.S. 563 (1906). ''See also "U.S. v. Shipp,"'' 214 U.S. 386 (1909).〕 was a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States with regard to events surrounding a lynching in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It is, to this day, the only Supreme Court criminal trial in its history. ==Background== (詳細はblack man, had been convicted in Hamilton County, Tennessee of the rape of a white woman on February 11, 1906 and sentenced to death. On March 3, 1906, Johnson filed a writ of ''habeas corpus'', alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated. Specifically, he alleged that all blacks had been systematically excluded from both the grand jury considering the original indictment against him and the trial jury considering his case. He further argued that he had been substantively denied the right to counsel, as his lawyer had been too intimidated by the threats of mob violence to file motions for a change of venue, a continuance, or a new trial, all of which could be reasonably expected under the circumstances, meaning that he (Johnson) was, in effect, about to be deprived of his life without due process. Johnson's petition was initially denied on March 10, 1906, and he was remanded to the custody of Hamilton County Sheriff Joseph F. Shipp, with the stipulation that Johnson be given 10 days to file further appeals.〔(Chattanooga Times Article on Shipp Case )〕 His appeal to the Supreme Court was granted by Justice Harlan on March 17, and subsequently by the entire court on March 19. However, despite being advised of this ruling by telegram on that date, and the case and the ruling being given full coverage by Chattanooga's evening newspapers that day, the case purported that Shipp and his chief jailer nonetheless allowed a mob to enter the Hamilton County jail and lynch Johnson on the city's Walnut Street Bridge. The court felt that this action constituted contempt of court in that Sheriff Shipp, fully knowledgeable of the court's ruling, nonetheless chose willfully to ignore his duties to protect a prisoner in his care. 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「United States v. Shipp」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.