Smart Justice

Featured

Mississippi
Mar 2017
Dockery v. Hall

Smart Justice

Prisoners' Rights

Dockery v. Hall

The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, filed a petition for class certification and expert reports for a federal lawsuit on behalf of prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF). The lawsuit, which was filed in May 2013, describes the for-profit prison as hyper-violent, grotesquely filthy and dangerous. EMCF is operated in a perpetual state of crisis where prisoners are at grave risk of death and loss of limbs. The facility, located in Meridian, Mississippi, is supposed to provide intensive treatment to the state's prisoners with serious psychiatric disabilities, many of whom are locked down in long-term solitary confinement.
Dockery V. Hall. Explore Case.

All Cases

190 Smart Justice Cases

Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2005

Smart Justice

Women's Rights

Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana

These cases raise the question of how to determine whether evidence is "testimonial" for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, and thus inadmissible at trial unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose "testimony" is being offered by the prosecution. The Ƶbrief urges the Court to adopt an objective standard under which a statement would be treated as "testimonial" if a reasonable person under the circumstances would understand that the statement could be used for criminal investigation or prosecution. DECIDED
Explore case
Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2005
Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana

Smart Justice

Women's Rights

Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana

These cases raise the question of how to determine whether evidence is "testimonial" for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, and thus inadmissible at trial unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose "testimony" is being offered by the prosecution. The Ƶbrief urges the Court to adopt an objective standard under which a statement would be treated as "testimonial" if a reasonable person under the circumstances would understand that the statement could be used for criminal investigation or prosecution. DECIDED
Davis V. Washington And Hammon V. Indiana. Explore Case.
Samson v. California
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2005

Smart Justice

Criminal Law Reform

Samson v. California

This case reviews whether the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to search a parolee on the public streets without any basis for suspicion. DECIDED
Explore case
Samson V. California. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2005
Samson v. California

Smart Justice

Criminal Law Reform

Samson v. California

This case reviews whether the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to search a parolee on the public streets without any basis for suspicion. DECIDED
Samson V. California. Explore Case.
Goodman v. Georgia
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2005

Smart Justice

Prisoners' Rights

Goodman v. Georgia

Reviewing whether state prisons that discriminate against prisoners with disabilities can be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. DECIDED
Explore case
Goodman V. Georgia. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2005
Goodman v. Georgia

Smart Justice

Prisoners' Rights

Goodman v. Georgia

Reviewing whether state prisons that discriminate against prisoners with disabilities can be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. DECIDED
Goodman V. Georgia. Explore Case.
Wilkinson v. Austin
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2005

Smart Justice

+2 Ƶ

Wilkinson v. Austin

Reviewing the procedures required by due process before an Ohio prisoner can be transferred to the state's Supermax facility. DECIDED
Explore case
Wilkinson V. Austin. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2005
Wilkinson v. Austin

Smart Justice

+2 Ƶ

Wilkinson v. Austin

Reviewing the procedures required by due process before an Ohio prisoner can be transferred to the state's Supermax facility. DECIDED
Wilkinson V. Austin. Explore Case.
Jackson v. City of Birmingham
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2005

Smart Justice

Women's Rights

Jackson v. City of Birmingham

Reviewing whether whistleblowers are protected against retaliation under Title IX, which generally prohibits sex discrimination in schools. DECIDED
Explore case
Jackson V. City Of Birmingham. Explore Case.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2005
Jackson v. City of Birmingham

Smart Justice

Women's Rights

Jackson v. City of Birmingham

Reviewing whether whistleblowers are protected against retaliation under Title IX, which generally prohibits sex discrimination in schools. DECIDED
Jackson V. City Of Birmingham. Explore Case.
3334
35
3637...