top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: October 9

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Oct 9, 2024
  • 1 min read

Pilon v. Bordenkircher, 444 U.S. 1 (decided October 9, 1979): Court, relying on its own recent precedent, reverses the denial of habeas and remands back to District Court; after state court conviction for manslaughter, lower court applied former standard for violation of Due Process (reversing only if there is “no evidence in support of conviction”); new, more defendant-friendly standard is whether if “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”


Agoston v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 340 U.S. 844 (decided October 9, 1950): denying cert in murder case; Frankfurter in support writes to emphasize that denying cert does not mean the Court is affirming the decision below; Douglas and Black dissent, pointing out that this case is similar to a recent case where the Court had overturned conviction on Due Process grounds (Turner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62) (in that pre-Miranda case, appearance before magistrate was delayed until confession had been obtained by police after “prolonged questioning”)

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: February 4

Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co. , 342 U.S. 359 (decided February 4, 1952): release of personal injury defendant sued under Federal Employers’ Liability Act is determined by federal, not st

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: February 3

Germany v. Philipp , 592 U.S. 169 (decided February 3, 2021): Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act barred suit in U.S. courts by Holocaust survivors to recover value of property they were forced to sell

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: February 2

Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 17 U.S. 518 (decided February 2, 1819): state attempt to change existing charter of college to turn it into a public institution violated Contracts Clause; corporate en

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page