Supreme Court of the United States - 337 U.S. 241
The legal case involves a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a New York state court judge. The judge erred by discussing additional information obtained through the court's Probation Department and other sources in open court. The defendant challenges the constitutionality of New York's policy that allows judges to consider information obtained outside the courtroom from individuals whom the defendant has not been allowed to confront or cross-examine. The case raises a question regarding the rules of evidence that apply to a judge's acquisition of information to guide them in sentencing a convicted defendant. The lower court may have erred in not considering the defendant's argument. The practice of individualizing sentences distinguishes between first-time and repeat offenders, and indeterminate sentences have largely replaced rigidly fixed punishments. Restricting information obtained through investigational techniques would undermine modern penological procedural policies that have been cautiously adopted throughout the nation.
The dissenting opinion in this case argues that the judge made an error in sentencing the defendant to death, despite the jury's unanimous recommendation for life imprisonment. The judge relied on a probation report that contained inadmissible evidence, including irrelevant allegations of prior crimes and hearsay, which violated the defendant's due process rights. The probation report cannot be admissible in trial and cannot be examined by the defendant in a capital case. Therefore, the judge's reliance on the probation report to sentence the defendant to death was not in compliance with due process, and the recommendation of the jury for life imprisonment should have been respected.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.