| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
William O. Douglas
|
Professional judicial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Arthur Goldberg
|
Professional judicial |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1963-01-01 | N/A | Denial of certiorari in Rudolph v. Alabama and subsequent dissent by Justices Brennan and Douglas. | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 32 of 78 in the production), produced by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the legal and ethical arguments against 'ex parte' subpoenas, arguing they are unfair to victims and violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims should have notice and the right to be heard before their confidential information is turned over to the defense, citing ABA standards and Supreme Court precedent.
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (possibly by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of such document dumps) discussing legal history. It details the 1963 Supreme Court dissent in *Rudolph v. Alabama* regarding the death penalty for rape, specifically focusing on Justices Brennan and Douglas. It highlights the media backlash, specifically an aggressive editorial from the *New Hampshire Union Leader* accusing the justices of encouraging rape.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity