Английская Википедия:Durham v. United States (1971)

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Версия от 21:46, 29 февраля 2024; EducationBot (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}} {{About|the 1971 United States Supreme Court decision|the 1954 DC Circuit case|Durham v. United States (1954)}} {{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}} {{Infobox SCOTUS case |Litigants=Durham v. United States |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate=March 8 |DecideYear=1971 |FullName=George Washington Durham, Petitioner, v. United States |USVol=401 |USPage=481 |ParallelCitat...»)
(разн.) ← Предыдущая версия | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая версия → (разн.)
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:About Шаблон:Use mdy dates Шаблон:Infobox SCOTUS case Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the death of a defendant pending a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on direct review of the criminal conviction will cause the Court to vacate the conviction. In a per curiam opinion, the Court wrote that "[t]he unanimity of the lower federal courts" in vacating criminal convictions when the defendant dies during direct review was "impressive" and accordingly vacated the original conviction.[1]

In a one-sentence dissent, Justice Marshall, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Stewart, wrote that the Court should dismiss only the petition for writ of certiorari rather than the entire conviction, writing:

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, believes that the case should be disposed of as follows:
The petitioner having died while his petition for certiorari was pending before this Court, we dismiss the petition as moot and direct the Court of Appeals to note this action on its records.[2]

Justice Blackmun wrote a separate dissenting opinion, noting that the petitioner had filed his petition out of time and that the Court should not dismiss a criminal conviction "which was unsuccessfully appealed throughout the entire appeal process to which the petitioner was entitled as of right".[3]

The Court's decision in this case and other abatement cases has been criticized for allowing convicted criminal defendants to escape the collateral consequences of their convictions, including restitution orders.[4][5]

The Court's decision in Durham was later overruled in Dove v. United States.[6][7]

References

Шаблон:Reflist

External links

  1. Durham v. United States, Шаблон:Ussc.
  2. Durham v. United States, Шаблон:Ussc (Marshall, J., dissenting).
  3. Durham v. United States, Шаблон:Ussc (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
  4. Шаблон:Cite journal
  5. Шаблон:Cite journal
  6. Шаблон:Ussc ("To the extent that Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971), may be inconsistent with this ruling, Durham is overruled.").
  7. Шаблон:Cite journal