翻訳と辞書 ・ Wainwright Airport
・ Wainwright Airport (Alaska)
・ Wainwright Bank
・ Wainwright Bisons
・ Wainwright Building
・ Wainwright Dairy
・ Wainwright family
・ Wainwright High School
・ Wainwright Prize
・ Wainwright railway station
・ Wainwright Roaming Buffalo Classic
・ Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp.
・ Wainwright Tomb
・ Wainwright v Home Office
・ Wainwright v. Greenfield
・ Wainwright v. Witt
・ Wainwright, Alabama
・ Wainwright, Alaska
・ Wainwright, Alberta
・ Wainwright, Jackson County, Ohio
・ Wainwright, Missouri
・ Wainwright, Ohio
・ Wainwright, Oklahoma
・ Wainwright, Tuscarawas County, Ohio
・ Wainwright/Wainwright (Field 21) Airport
・ Wainwrights On The Air
・ Wainy Days
・ WAIO
・ Waioeka River
・ Waiofar
|
|
| Wainwright v. Witt ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Wainwright v. Witt
''Wainwright vs. Witt'', , was a Supreme Court of the United States case argued on October 4, 1984, and denied a rehearing on March 5, 1985. The defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, appealed to the Supreme Court that his 6th and 14th Amendments were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the court unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the voir dire process.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/470/1039/ )〕 This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/469/412/ )〕
==Background==
In 1974, the defendant, Johhny Paul Witt, was tried and convicted of first degree murder in the state of Florida.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/469/412 )〕 It was proven that the murder had taken place while the defendant and his accomplice Gary Tillman were bow and arrow hunting in the woods. The two friends admitted to talking about killing people frequently. They even occasionally stalked humans as prey in the woods for fun. While on their bow and arrow hunting trip, the two males eventually ended up stalking an 11-year-old boy named Johnathan Kushner riding his bike down a popular trail in the woods. From there, the accomplice hit the boy with a star bit from a drill stunning the child. Witt and his accomplice gagged the child and threw him in the back of his trunk where the child died from suffocation as a result of the gagging. After driving to a deserted grove, Witt and his accomplice removed the lifeless child in the trunk and slit his stomach to prevent bloating. After, Witt and Tillman performed sexual and violent acts on the body, and then buried it in a grave.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19830620_0040868.C11.htm/qx )〕 After being convicted of first degree murder on February 21, 1974, Witt was also sentenced to the death penalty. Witt appealed this sentence for five different issues which included, the court not allowing evidence to prove insanity, the courts alleged use of non-record material in reviewing his sentence, the state forcing him to admit guilt before he was allowed the right to an attorney, and how the court relied on non-statutory aggravated circumstances however still sentenced him to capital punishment.〔 All four of those mentioned claims were almost immediately thrown out. The only legitimate and significant appeal he made was his belief that the jury had been death qualified because three of the jurors were “improperly excluded for cause because of their opposition to capital punishment.” In a previous Supreme Court case in 1968, (Witherspoon vs. Illinois), the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that "prospective jurors could not be disqualified from jury service simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against it. However, a state may exclude those jurors who would automatically vote against the death penalty, or those jurors whose attitudes about the death penalty would affect their decision regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence.” 〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Witherspoon+v.+Illinois )〕 Therefore, the state of Florida could, in fact, force a juror to step down if it is unmistakably clear that he or she would automatically vote not guilty or guilty for personal or religious beliefs. Witt’s argument was that jurors, who wouldn’t automatically vote not guilty on the death penalty, still were forced to step down simply because they didn’t like the death penalty and were more likely to vote not guilty. This he argued, was a violation of his 6th and 14th Amendments.
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「Wainwright v. Witt」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.
|
|