1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
agasfer [191]
3 years ago
5

In ______________, the Supreme Court ruled that juries, not judges, must make the crucial factual decisions as to whether a conv

icted murderer should receive the death penalty.
Social Studies
1 answer:
egoroff_w [7]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Ring v Arizona (2002)

Explanation:

On June 24, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, ending the practice of having a judge, rather than a jury, decide the critical sentencing issues in a death penalty case. It is unclear, however, if the ruling will apply to all the defendants in all states with judge sentencing.

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, was a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty.

You might be interested in
GIVING BRAINIEST
Sergio039 [100]

Hi!


Your answer is A


Hope this helps!

Have a great day!


~Courtney

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
ليزيد عدد<br> سكان العالم عام 2025<br><br> If you can help me I would appreciate it a lot:)
Lera25 [3.4K]

Answer:

????

Explanation:

english kkkakkaka

3 0
3 years ago
What is north of Saudi Arabia
vlabodo [156]

The countries of Jordan and Iraq are both located to the north of the Saudi Arabian border.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How does this call for a crusade demonstrate the influence of the Pope and the Catholic Church?
frosja888 [35]
The church is willing to take the holy land
7 0
3 years ago
"Brandy Austin used powdered infant formula manufactured by Nestlé USA, Inc., to feed her infant daughter. Austin claimed that a
kifflom [539]

The case should be on the venue where Austin bought the infected formula manufactured by Nestle USA Inc.

It doesn't affect if the baby was born in South Carolina: They cant say the alleged harm occur there just because the baby was born there. The harm occurred where Austin bought the formula by Nestle, if the formula was bought in Minnesota, South Carolina shouldn't be involved in this case just because Austin's residency.

The case shouldn't be transferred, the final verdict it should be determined by the laws of the state where the harm object (In this case the formula) was bought and consumed.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How would you characterize the social hierarchy of classical china?
    14·1 answer
  • Which act taxed almost all printed material in the colonies
    5·1 answer
  • "As is now well known, political parties in recent years have built databases to facilitate targeting strategies. These database
    15·1 answer
  • Of the approximately 280 million people living in the United States, about _____ claim to be full-blooded or 100% of Native Amer
    8·1 answer
  • Help pls!! i’ll give you 40 points!!!
    10·2 answers
  • What is the preamble
    9·2 answers
  • How do racial categories shape our identities and social status?
    12·1 answer
  • What technological innovations contributed to the high death tolls during World War I?​
    15·1 answer
  • How did the printing press help to renew the availability of ancient knowledge to European populations?
    15·1 answer
  • What is the main difference between fertilization and development in salmon and humans?
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!