Edward Harold Schad, Jr. v. Arizona

The justices ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution do not require that states adopt the insanity defense in criminal cases that are based on the defendant's ability to recognize right from wrong.

The Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court excused the broadcasters from paying fines levied for what the FCC had determined indecency, in a majority opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.

The Court unanimously vacated a South Carolina rape and murder conviction, ruling that excluding the defendant's evidence of a third party's guilt because the prosecution's forensic evidence seemed strong violated his right to present a complete defense.· AI-written

The Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to enforce a restraining order, even though the refusal led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court held that it is against due process, a right prescribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.

The Court upheld the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) as consistent with substantive due process.

The Court held that the sport-association can be sued as a state actor because its actions and history have been "entangled" with state action.

The Court rejected a challenge to Washington state's civil commitment statute for sexual predators, following earlier cases that had upheld civil commitment statutes.· AI-written

The Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.

The Court reversed an Oklahoma court decision holding that a defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise by the second highest legal standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence, ruling that to be unconstitutional.

The Court held that the due-process rights of a man who claimed to be a child's biological father had not been violated.

The court held that the standard of proof in a paternity action need not be higher than the preponderance of the evidence.

The Court held that in a criminal case the requirement that the prosecution prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to elements of the offense, not to justification, so states could place the burden of proving justification on the defense.· AI-written

The Court held that a lawful permanent resident returning from a brief trip abroad is entitled to due process protections in exclusion proceedings under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In a case about a man with an intellectual disability who was restrained and abused in a Pennsylvania state hospital, the Court agreed that involuntarily committed residents had rights to reasonably safe conditions, no unreasonable restraints and reasonably required habilitation.· AI-written

The Court set the standard for involuntary psychiatric commitment, raising the required burden of proof from "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence."· AI-written

The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent New York from requiring a defendant to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, since the state had made it an excuse rather than a mens rea element.· AI-written

The Court held that a non-lawyer jurist can constitutionally sit in a jail-carrying criminal case provided that the defendant has an opportunity through an appeal to obtain a second trial before a judge who is a lawyer.

The Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine non-dangerous individuals who are capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.

A unanimous court struck down a state statute requiring a defendant to prove the defense of provocation to downgrade a murder conviction to manslaughter.

The Court held a Missouri trial court deprived a defendant of due process by failing to order a competency examination after he was hospitalized following an attempted suicide and as a result missed a portion of his trial for a capital offense.

The Court determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.

The Court declared a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance unconstitutionally vague.· AI-written

The court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial.

The court held that evidence withheld by the prosecution is only Brady material if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different, considering the context of the entire record.

The Court unanimously held that it is a violation of due process to convict a person of an offense when there is no evidence of his guilt.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of placing the burden of persuasion on the defendant when they argue an insanity defense in a criminal trial.