DOCSLIB.ORG

Petitioner, —V.—

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

No. ________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States dNIKKO A. JENKINS, Petitioner, —v.— STATE OF NEBRASKA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Brian W. Stull David D. Cole Cassandra Stubbs Counsel of Record AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION UNION FOUNDATION 201 W. Main Street, Suite 402 915 15th Street, NW Durham, NC 27701 Washington, D.C. 20005 Amy A. Miller (212) 549-2500 [email protected] ACLU OF NEBRASKA FOUNDATION Jennesa Calvo-Friedman 134 S. 13th St. #1010 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Lincoln, NE 68508 UNION FOUNDATION Thomas C. Riley 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 DOUGLAS COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER 1819 Farnam Street H05 Civic Center Omaha, NE 68183 **CAPITAL CASE** QUESTIONS PRESENTED Severely mentally ill since the age of eight, Nikko Jenkins was imprisoned in Nebraska for armed robbery at age seventeen. He was held in solitary confinement for nearly five years—including for more than two years immediately preceding his release. He exhibited severe mental illness and self- mutilation in solitary confinement, and repeatedly sought assistance, including requests that he be civilly committed as a danger to others rather than released. The State ignored his pleas, and released him directly from solitary confinement to the community, without any assistance or transition. Within three weeks of release, he killed four people. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death, under a Nebraska law that authorizes a panel of judges, rather than a jury, to make factual findings necessary to impose a sentence of death. The questions presented are: (1) Whether the sentencing court violated the requirement of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment that capital sentencers give meaningful consideration and effect to all mitigating evidence, when it categorically refused to consider the impact of prolonged solitary confinement and the State’s inadequate response, because it concluded that the solitary confinement was warranted. (2) Whether a capital sentencing scheme that requires a jury to find aggravating factors, but authorizes judges, rather than a jury, to make all further factual findings necessary to the imposition of a sentence of death, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. i TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............. 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 15 I. THE PANEL’S CATEGORICAL REFUSAL TO CONSIDER AS MITIGATING EVIDENCE JENKINS’ FIFTY-EIGHT MONTHS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS ON HIS MENTAL STATE VIOLATED THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. ................................................. 15 A. Refusing to Consider the Effects of Solitary Confinement as Mitigating Evidence Flouts This Court’s Directives Regarding Mitigation. .................................................. 15 B. The Nebraska Courts’ Failure to Consider the Effects of Prolonged Solitary Confinement Defies the Widespread Consensus that Such Treatment Has Debilitating Effects on Mental Health. ..... 20 ii II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE A FULLY MATURE SPLIT AMONG STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT AS TO WHETHER A JURY MUST FIND ALL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A DEATH SENTENCE, OR NEED ONLY FIND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. .......................................... 25 A. The State Supreme Courts of Florida, Delaware, Colorado, and Arizona Hold that a Jury Must Find All Facts Necessary for the Imposition of a Sentence of Death. ..................................... 27 B. The Court Below and Four Other State Supreme Courts Have Ruled that the Sixth Amendment Requires That a Jury Find Only the Presence of Aggravating Factors, and Permits Judges to Make Other Factual Findings Necessary to Impose a Death Sentence. .................................................... 31 C. The Decision Below is Incorrect Because the Sixth Amendment Requires a Jury to Find All Facts Necessary to the Imposition of a Death Sentence. ............... 34 III. THIS CASE IS AN EXCELLENT VEHICLE FOR ADDRESSING TWO IMPORTANT DEATH PENALTY QUESTIONS. ................... 37 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 39 APPENDIX ................................................................ 1a Opinion, Supreme Court of Nebraska (July 19, 2019) ..................................................... 1a iii Order of Sentence, District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska (May 31, 2017) .................... 70a Order, Nebraska Supreme Court (Aug. 9, 2019) ................................................... 112a Ombudsman’s Report, State of Nebraska, Office of the Public Counsel/Ombudsman (Dec. 9, 2013) ................................................... 113a Report to the Nebraska State Legislature, Department of Correctional Services Special Investigative Committee (Dec. 15, 2014)........ 261a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007) ... 16 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) .... 34, 36 Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) ............ 16 California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 (1987) ................ 18 Casey v. Lewis, 834 F. Supp. 1477 (D. Ariz. 1993) .. 22 Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E. D. Cal. 1995) ..................... 22 Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) ............... 20. 21 Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) ................................... 16, 17, 18 Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So. 3d 525 (Ala. 2016) ...... 33 Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015) .................. 25 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ..................... 37 Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) .. 27, 34, 35, 36 Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) ........... 28, 36 In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890) ...................... 20, 21 Indiana Prot. & Advocacy Servs. Comm’n v. Comm’r, Indiana Dep’t of Corr., No. 1:08-cv-01317- TWP-MJD, 2012 WL 6738517 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2012) ....................................... 22 Johnson v. State, 256 So. 3d 684 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) ................. 33 Johnson v. State, 59 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2002) ............... 30 Jones‘El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (W.D. Wis. 2001) ................ 22 v Kirksey v. State, 243 So. 3d 849 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) ................. 33 Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) .................. 16, 17 Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 (2013) ................. 18 Nunnery v. State, 263 P.3d 235 (Nev. 2011) ............ 31 Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2017)............................. 21, 22 Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 (1991) ............... 17, 18 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) .................. 16 Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) .............. 17, 18 People v. Banks, 934 N.E.2d 435 (Ill. 2010) ............. 34 People v. Davis, 793 N.E.2d 552 (Ill. 2002) .............. 34 Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016) ............. 29, 32 Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) ........... 30, 35, 36 Roberts v. Warden, San Quentin State Prison, No. CIV S-93-0254 GEB, 2013 WL 416346, (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013) ....................................... 21 Rogers v. State, No. SC18-150, 2019 WL 4197021 (Fla. Sept. 5, 2019).................. 21 Russell v. State, 261 So. 3d 454 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) ................. 33 Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) .......... 16 State v. Barker, 826 N.E.2d 648 (Ind. 2005) ............ 33 State v. Lamar, 115 P.3d 611 (Ariz. 2005) ............... 30 State v. Lotter, 917 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2018) ............... 31, 35, 36, 38 State v. Mata, 745 N.W.2d 229 (Neb. 2008) ............. 35 vi State v. Ring, 65 P.3d 915 (Ariz. 2003) .................... 30 State v. Wood, 580 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. 2019) ............... 32 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) ................ 36 Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) ................... 16 United States v. Fields, 761 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................. 21 United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, (11th Cir. 2011) ............................ 21 United States v. Lara, 905 F.2d 599 (2d Cir. 1990)................................... 21 Wimbley v. State, 238 So. 3d 1268 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) ............... 33 Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) ............ 37 Woldt v. People, 64 P.3d 256 (Colo. 2003) ................ 30 Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) .... 17 CONSTITUTION & STATUTES U.S. Const. amend. VI ....................................... passim U.S. Const. amend. VII ..................................... passim 18 U.S.C. § 3593 ........................................................ 27 34 U.S.C. § 10132 NOTE .......................................... 22 21 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 701.11 .................................... 26 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9711 ................. 27 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-752 ........................................... 26 Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-603 .......................................... 26 Cal. Penal Code § 190.4(b) ........................................ 26 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1201..................................
Recommended publications
  • Gerry Mulligan Discography

    Gerry Mulligan Discography

    GERRY MULLIGAN DISCOGRAPHY GERRY MULLIGAN RECORDINGS, CONCERTS AND WHEREABOUTS by Gérard Dugelay, France and Kenneth Hallqvist, Sweden January 2011 Gerry Mulligan DISCOGRAPHY - Recordings, Concerts and Whereabouts by Gérard Dugelay & Kenneth Hallqvist - page No. 1 PREFACE BY GERARD DUGELAY I fell in love when I was younger I was a young jazz fan, when I discovered the music of Gerry Mulligan through a birthday gift from my father. This album was “Gerry Mulligan & Astor Piazzolla”. But it was through “Song for Strayhorn” (Carnegie Hall concert CTI album) I fell in love with the music of Gerry Mulligan. My impressions were: “How great this man is to be able to compose so nicely!, to improvise so marvellously! and to give us such feelings!” Step by step my interest for the music increased I bought regularly his albums and I became crazy from the Concert Jazz Band LPs. Then I appreciated the pianoless Quartets with Bob Brookmeyer (The Pleyel Concerts, which are easily available in France) and with Chet Baker. Just married with Danielle, I spent some days of our honey moon at Antwerp (Belgium) and I had the chance to see the Gerry Mulligan Orchestra in concert. After the concert my wife said: “During some songs I had lost you, you were with the music of Gerry Mulligan!!!” During these 30 years of travel in the music of Jeru, I bought many bootleg albums. One was very important, because it gave me a new direction in my passion: the discographical part. This was the album “Gerry Mulligan – Vol. 2, Live in Stockholm, May 1957”.
  • State-Of-Judiciary-2021.Pdf

    State-Of-Judiciary-2021.Pdf

    State of the JUDICIARY 2021 State of Nebraska Chief Justice Michael G. Heavican www.supremecourt.ne.gov Nebraska Supreme Court Michael G. Heavican, Chief Jeffrey J. Funke Lindsey Miller-Lerman Jonathan J. Papik William B. Cassel John F. Freudenberg Stephanie F. Stacy State Court Administrator Corey R. Steel State Probation Administrator Deborah A. Minardi State of the Judiciary 2021 I. INTRODUCTION Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Legislature. Thanks to all of you, particularly Speaker Hilgers, for inviting me to address you this morning. As always, it is an honor for me to report on the accomplishments of our Judicial Branch and to discuss our upcoming plans with you. Although not with me in the Chamber today, my fellow justices are watching on livestream: Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman of Omaha; Justice William Cassel of O’Neill; Justice Stephanie Stacy of Lincoln; Justice Jeff Funke of Nebraska City; Justice Jonathan Papik, also of Omaha; and Justice John Freudenberg of Rushville. Today I will highlight the activities of Nebraska’s Judicial Branch this past year, including our pandemic response, our access to justice initiatives, what’s new with probation and problem-solving courts, and the Office of Public Guardian. Notwithstanding the current pandemic and other challenges, we have had many successes and accomplishments in 2020 and look forward to 2021. II. THE CONSTITUTION Article I, § 13 of our Constitution states that “[a]ll courts shall be open, and every person, for any injury done him or her . shall have a remedy by due course of law and justice administered without denial or delay.” This means that our courts must remain open, even when much of the rest of society is not.
  • Case Management System Migration for the 4Th Judicial District of Nebraska

    Case Management System Migration for the 4Th Judicial District of Nebraska

    al Center forSc State Courts Case Management System Migration for the 4th Judicial District of Nebraska Larry Webster, Project Director John Matthias, Project Consultant Daniel J. Hall, Vice President Court Consulting Services National Center for State Courts 707 17th Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Background 2 III. Case Management Systems and Business Process Assessment 4 A. Methodology 4 B. Business Processes Reviewed 4 C. Business Processes Affected by JUSTICE Transition 7 1) Changes that May Eliminate Work and Improve Business Processes 8 2) Process Issues that Will Require Changes to JUSTICE 9 3) Required Business Process Changes 12 4) Additional Changes that Should Be Considered 14 D. General Principles 15 1) One-Stop Customer Service 15 2) Immediate Availability of Digital Documents 16 3) Recording Courtroom Activity 16 4) Integrated Justice 16 5) Eliminate Unnecessary Parallel Indexing and Recordkeeping Systems 16 6) Eliminate Disparity of Practice 16 IV. District Court Clerk Organizational Changes 18 V. Electronic Document Management Analysis 22 A. General Principles 22 B. Content Manager 22 C. Project Gabe 23 D. JUSTICE EDMS 23 E. E-filing with JUSTICE 23 VI. Court Policy Environment 24 A. Rule 4-2 Pleadings 25 B. Rule 4-2 Computer Database 25 C. Rule 4-4 Criminal Cases 25 D. Rule 4-6 Dismissals and Settlements 25 E. Rule 4-10 Case Progression 26 F. Rule 4-12 Assignment of Cases 26 G. Rule 4-17 Garnishments 26 VII. Public Access to Court Records 28 VIII. Integration Analysis 29 A. Introduction 29 B. Current CJIS Functions and Interfaces to Be Retained 1) Criminal Complaint 30 2) Prisoner Transport 33 3) Juvenile Court Out-of-Home Placements Oracle Batch Payment 34 4) Attorney Fees Weekly Oracle Batch Payment 35 5) Monthly Ledgers Microfiche 37 C.
  • Alabama Office of the Attorney General Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority

    Alabama Office of the Attorney General Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority

    Alabama Office of the Attorney General Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Revision Presented to the State Records Commission April 24, 2019 Table of Contents Functional and Organizational Analysis of the Alabama Office of the Attorney General .... 3 Sources of Information ................................................................................................................ 3 Historical Context ....................................................................................................................... 3 Agency Organization ................................................................................................................... 3 Agency Function and Subfunctions ............................................................................................ 4 Records Appraisal of the Alabama Office of the Attorney General ........................................ 7 Temporary Records ..................................................................................................................... 7 Permanent Records .................................................................................................................... 11 Permanent Records List ............................................................................................................ 15 Alabama Office of the Attorney General Records Disposition Authority ............................. 16 Explanation of Records Requirements ...................................................................................... 16 Records
  • The Nebraska Transcript, Spring 2016, Vol. 49 No.1

    The Nebraska Transcript, Spring 2016, Vol. 49 No.1

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln The eN braska Transcript Law, College of Spring 2016 The eN braska Transcript, Spring 2016, Vol. 49 No.1 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebtranscript Part of the Law Commons "The eN braska Transcript, Spring 2016, Vol. 49 No.1" (2016). The Nebraska Transcript. 21. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebtranscript/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in The eN braska Transcript by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Nebraska RANSCRIPT T University of Nebraska College of Law Former Dean Susan Poser begins new chapter at UIC Also in this issue: Works, Kirst and Lyons retire with combined 123 years of service Pittman appointed to top position in The United Nations Spring 2016, Vol. 49 No. 1 Nebraska Law Table of Contents Spring 2016, Vol. 49 No.1 Dean’s Message 2 Dean’s Message Faculty Updates 4 Works, Kirst & Lyons retirement 6 Faculty Notes Around the College 17 Moberly appointed interim dean 18 Berger, assoicate dean 18 Sullivan joins Law College 19 Beard & Hurwitz named Trailblazers Feature 20 Poser closes UNL chapter Around the College 23 3L gains policy work experience 24 ILSA hosts USPTO’s Morris 25 West African leaders share insight 26 McCoy joins admissions office 27 BYC Boost program 28 Collingsworth, Dean’s roundtable 29 Yale’s Langbein delivers lecture 30 Heiliger, Sheldon at UNK 31 Vinton competes on Jeopardy 32 LL.M., Carns earns promotion 32 Law Team wins Ag Law Quiz Bowl 34 December 2015 commencement Poser ends deanship, service at UNL Our Alumni Susan Poser concluded her time as dean of the College of Law on 36 Curtiss visits Entreprenuership Clinic January 27, 2016, to join the University of Illinois-Chicago as its 37 Pittman promoted to head of chamber provost and senior vice chancellor for academic affairs.
  • Section I Leadership

    Section I Leadership

    Dakota County Juvenile Services Comprehensive Community Plan 2015 – 2018 Dakota County Juvenile Services Comprehensive Community Plan July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2018 SECTION I LEADERSHIP Prepared By: Sarah Deck Dakota County Juvenile Diversion 1601 Broadway P.O. Box 117 Dakota City, NE 68731 [email protected] Chair of Team: Michael Carlson Reporting Center Coordinator, Dist. 6 Probation State of Nebraska 1000 W. 29th Street, Suite 118 South Sioux City, NE 68776 [email protected] Board Chair: Antonio Gomez Dakota County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 165 Jackson, NE 68743 [email protected] Page 1 Dakota County Juvenile Services Comprehensive Community Plan 2015 – 2018 SECTION II COMMUNITY TEAM Page 2 Dakota County Juvenile Services Comprehensive Community Plan 2015 – 2018 The Dakota County Juvenile Services Comprehensive Plan Team was organized in 2006 with guidance from Mark Martin, a criminal justice consultant. The team has been meeting quarterly since that time. During each team meeting, the team reviews the plan and discusses the progress of each strategy. New ideas or topics are also discussed amongst the team members. The team consists of representatives from various agencies in the county that work directly with juveniles and representatives from the business community. The members represent the county’s School Districts, Law Enforcement, Health and Human Services, Probation, County Attorney, Diversion, County Board, and community stakeholders. Michael Carlson was assigned the position of chairperson by former Project Director, Robert Denton, in 2012. Mr. Carlson assumed the responsibility of organizing and facilitating the meetings until March of 2015 when Sarah Deck, Diversion Coordinator, assumed these duties.
  • Proceedings of the Nebraska State Bar Association House of Delegates Meeting, 1959 Joseph C

    Proceedings of the Nebraska State Bar Association House of Delegates Meeting, 1959 Joseph C

    Nebraska Law Review Volume 39 | Issue 1 Article 2 1960 Proceedings of the Nebraska State Bar Association House of Delegates Meeting, 1959 Joseph C. Tye Nebraska State Bar Association Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Joseph C. Tye, Proceedings of the Nebraska State Bar Association House of Delegates Meeting, 1959, 39 Neb. L. Rev. 1 (1960) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol39/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. PRESIDENT JOSEPH C. TYE 1959 OFFICERS OF THE NEBRASKA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION President JOSEPH C. TYE Kearney Chairman of the House of Delegates RICHARD E. HUNTER Hastings Secretary-Treasurer GEORGE H. TuRNER Lincoln EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Joseph C. Tye ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kearney Paul H. Bek ....................---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seward Thomas F. Colfer .................................----------------------------....--------- McCook Alfred G. Ellick ----------------------...........................------------------------ - ------- Om aha John R. Fike ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Omaha Clarence E. Haley ------------------------------------------------------------------------Hartington
  • Vs - CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, Donaldson Correctional Facility, and CYNTHIA STEWART, Warden, Holman Correctional Facility, Respondents

    Vs - CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, Donaldson Correctional Facility, and CYNTHIA STEWART, Warden, Holman Correctional Facility, Respondents

    No. 19- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICHAEL BRANDON SAMRA, Petitioner - vs - CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, Donaldson Correctional Facility, and CYNTHIA STEWART, Warden, Holman Correctional Facility, Respondents ON PETITION FOR AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A CAPITAL CASE APPENDIX Volume 1 STEVEN R. SEARS ALAN M. FREEDMAN 655 Main Street Counsel of Record P.O. Box 4 CHRISTOPHER KOPACZ Montevallo, AL 35115 Midwest Center for Justice, Ltd. (205) 665-1211 P.O. Box 6528 [email protected] Evanston, IL 60204 (847) 492-1563 N. JOHN MAGRISSO (pro bono) [email protected] Attorney-At-Law 525 Florida St., Ste. 310 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 (225) 338-0235 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner APPENDIX Appendix A Order of the Alabama Supreme Court setting execution date of May 16, 2019 (April 11, 2019) Appendix B State of Alabama’s motion to set an execution date (March 20, 2019) Appendix C Samra’s objection to the State’s motion to set an execution date (March 26, 2019) Appendix D State of Alabama’s response to Samra’s objection to the State’s motion to set an execution date (April 1, 2019) Appendix E Samra’s reply to the State’s motion to set an execution date (April 2, 2019) Appendix F Samra’s second successive state Rule 32 post-conviction petition, which raises Eighth Amendment claim (March 26, 2019) Appendix G Order of the Shelby County Circuit Court dismissing Samra’s second successive state Rule 32 post-conviction petition (April 10, 2019) Appendix H Samra’s re-filed second successive state Rule 32 post-conviction petition, which raises Eighth Amendment claim (April 29, 2019) Appendix I Samra’s motion for a stay of execution in the Alabama Supreme Court (April 29, 2019) Appendix J Samra’s motion for a stay of execution in the Shelby County Circuit Court (April 29, 2019) Appendix K Opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirming Samra’s conviction and sentence, Samra v.
  • 30Days of 30Second Prayers

    30Days of 30Second Prayers

    30 days of second prayers 30 for leaders 1 That they recognize that they are accountable to God for each decision (Prov. 9:10). 2 That they be granted wisdom, knowledge and understanding (Jam. 1:5). 3 That they be presented with the gospel and a loving Christian witness (Ro. 10:14). 4 That, if unsaved, they be drawn to a saving encounter with Christ; that believers would be strengthened and encouraged in their faith (1 Tim. 2:4, Eph. 1:17-23). 5 That they recognize their inadequacy and pray, seeking the will of God (Prov. 3:5-8, Lk. 11:9-13). 6 That they be convicted of sin, transgression, and iniquity (Ps. 51:17, Jn. 8:9). 7 That they heed their conscience, confess their sins, and repent (Prov. 28:13, Jam. 4:8). 8 That they read the Bible and attend prayer meetings and Bible studies (Ps. 119:11, Col. 3:2). 9 That they value and regard the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ (Ps. 19:7-11). 10 That they respect and honor their parents (Eph. 6:2-3). 11 That they respect authority and practice accountability (Ro. 13:1-7). 12 That they be given godly counsel and have God-fearing advisors (Prov. 24:6). 13 That they be honest and faithful to their spouse and children (Mal. 2:15-16). 14 That they be practicing members of local congregations (Heb. 10:25). 15 That they desire purity and avoid debauchery, pornography, perversion, and drunkenness (1 Cor. 6:9-20, Titus 2:12).
  • THE 'COURTS ~, .;\!L I =J

    THE 'COURTS ~, .;\!L I =J

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ----~ ---- ------~------- ( 1Y; dJ ~ ->. ._,,__ k.,, __, .• .:.::::-.:.....-:_ .. -."'"" __ -.-----. _-..-.___ t-;.:::"'~'--'---·~'·~"·'''-·'·''';-·-'-''''··-'''-''''·' '~-~'~'---'''--''''7'' .• ,~,."~==.-.,.-.~~---......,:----.~,,,.~.--·--.... '7'~·-~~ .. -'-~ ...... ~-'---~ ........... ~~-....... ~~-.:.~~~'1 ~>-"~ _..".,,~ v~_..,~ ..,.,~ ~~._.~_'.~_~~,,,_~,~,_~.~"~~,_.~~ .~-:1 it t ',: .' , National Criminal Justice Reference Service THE 'COURTS ~, .;\!l i =j . I • 1 I y I ( I OF NEBRASKA ,':; Thiz microfiche was produced fcom documents received for I inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, I' the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on i this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. i \ Q i,. 1.0 ~ 1111/2,8 III"~ ug ~F2 2,2 Il£i r.:. ~3,6 w J:.I 0,,=4,0 1.:1. - r.:. " 1.1 gULl. IIIII:~ .25 11111.1.4 lllll1.6 , n MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A [I a ·1 'l Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. ,', Points of view or opinions stated in this document are A those of the author(s) and do not represent the official i Report on 'I~~eir Structure and Operation , . position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. 1980 National Institute of Justice 10/12/82 United States Department of Justicle Washington, D. C. 20531 , ", I , ! -------...,,-..,.........,.,.........,....---.=-- -~ ---- ---- - ~------ \ " ·.11 • THE COURTS OF NEBRASKA 1980 A Report on Tkeir Structure and Operation Prepared by the Office of the State Court Administrator CONTENTS U.S.
  • The Supreme Court of Alabama—Its Cahaba Beginning, 1820–1825

    The Supreme Court of Alabama—Its Cahaba Beginning, 1820–1825

    File: MEADOR EIC PUBLISH.doc Created on: 12/6/2010 1:51:00 PM Last Printed: 12/6/2010 2:53:00 PM ALABAMA LAW REVIEW Volume 61 2010 Number 5 THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA— ITS CAHABA BEGINNING, 1820–1825 ∗ Daniel J. Meador I. PROCEEDINGS IN HUNTSVILLE, 1819 ....................................... 891 II. THE FIRST SEAT OF STATE GOVERNMENT—CAHABA .................. 894 III. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES IN THE CAHABA YEARS, 1820–1825 896 IV. THE SUPREME COURT’S BUSINESS IN THE CAHABA YEARS .......... 900 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................. 905 The Supreme Court of Alabama opened its first term on May 8, 1820 at Cahaba, the site designated as the new state’s first seat of government. The court was born then and there, but it had been conceived the previous year in Huntsville, then the territorial capital.1 I. PROCEEDINGS IN HUNTSVILLE, 1819 The movement toward statehood in the Alabama Territory, created in 1817 when Mississippi was admitted as a state, formally began in March 1819 with congressional passage of the Enabling Act. That Act authorized the people of the territory to adopt a constitution and enact laws providing for a state government. Pursuant to that Act, a convention of forty-four elected delegates from throughout the territory convened in Huntsville in July to draft a state constitution.2 Huntsville, located in the Tennessee Val- ∗ James Monroe Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; member, Alabama State Bar; dean University of Alabama Law School, 1966–1970; author of At Cahaba-From Civil War to Great Depression (Cable Publishing, 2009); President, Cahaba Foundation, Inc. 1.
  • BENJAMIN M. V. JERI S. Cite As 307 Neb

    BENJAMIN M. V. JERI S. Cite As 307 Neb

    Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 11/10/2020 09:01 AM CST - 733 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports BENJAMIN M. v. JERI S. Cite as 307 Neb. 733 Benjamin M., appellant, v. Jeri S., appellee. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed November 6, 2020. No. S-19-1144. 1. Motions to Dismiss: Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. A district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Neb. Ct. R. of Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6) is reviewed de novo, accepting all the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. 2. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a ques- tion of law. On a question of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below. 3. Jurisdiction: Words and Phrases. Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to hear and determine a case in the general class or category to which the proceedings in question belong and to deal with the general subject matter involved. 4. Courts: Jurisdiction: Paternity. District courts have subject matter jurisdiction of actions to determine paternity of a child. 5. Limitations of Actions: Pleadings. A challenge that a pleading is barred by the statute of limitations is a challenge that the pleading fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a claim upon which relief can be granted. 6. Limitations of Actions: Pleadings: Waiver.