Louisiana trials. But we need to place this into perspective. This laudable ruling would only apply to cases then pending or recent will i adjudicated. It meant nothing to mr mr. Edwards, the only place that would jail you for life on a nonunanimous verdict. Why should the 6th amendment mean something less to mr. Edwards. Members of the ramos court were divided how to reconcile the fractured decision with then existing precedent. This cleared two paths that ramos, two paths to remedy those jailed by a jury scheme we know was morally wrong at its i think so tension and is unconstitutional. For some, apdoca was dead on arrival. And with these, they provided no value and ramos is an old rule dictated by precedent that simply restored the 6th amendments full measure either through the due process clause or privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment. For other justices. Apadoca was such a wrong decision, it needed to be overruled. And this restores fairness to jury trials in loui
Louisianas nonunanimous jury. On paper with a full breath of the jury trial right but the ruling needs to be put into perspective this ruling the ending or adjudicated it meant nothing to serving a life sentence for work that would be illegal everywhere else but louisianas only place that would you for life on a nonunanimous verdict. The question before the court is why should the fifth amendment mean something less us members of the court were divided on how to reconcile the fracture decision this had clear as to have a remedy for those of the jury scheme that was morally wrong at its inception and unconstitutional. They havent no president ial value this is an old rule and an accident for the six amendment full measure with the due process clause or the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment. With such a long a decision to be explicitly for those members of the court should be a watershed and restores for fairness and accuracy to the jury trials in louisiana. And those
Louisianas nonunanimous jury. On paper with a full breath of the jury trial right but the ruling needs to be put into perspective this ruling the ending or adjudicated it meant nothing to serving a life sentence for work that would be illegal everywhere else but louisianas only place that would you for life on a nonunanimous verdict. The question before the court is why should the fifth amendment mean something less us members of the court were divided on how to reconcile the fracture decision this had clear as to have a remedy for those of the jury scheme that was morally wrong at its inception and unconstitutional. They havent no president ial value this is an old rule and an accident for the six amendment full measure with the due process clause or the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment. With such a long a decision to be explicitly for those members of the court should be a watershed and restores for fairness and accuracy to the jury trials in louisiana. And those
Argument on legal access to online information and whether police and other enforcement officers can access information for personal purposes. Hear argument next in van buren versus united states. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the cfaa is an antihacking statute. To ensure comprehensive coverage, the statute prohibits exceeding authorized access. This ensures that the statute covers not just outside, but also inside hackers. In this case, however, the government seeks to transform the prong of the cfaa into a different prohibition. This prong covers obtaining any information via computer that the assessor is not entitled under the circumstances to obtain. It is no overstatement to say that this construction would brand most americans criminal on a daily basis. The scenarios are limitless, but a few examples will suffice. Imagine a secretary who says that her email or zoom account may be used only for businesses purposes or a person using a dating website whe
Mr. Chief justice, made please the court, it is an antihacking statute. Seatingprohibits the that succeeding access. It also covers not only outside but inside hackers. The government seeks to transform the prong into a different prohibition. It covers obtaining information by a computer that predecessor is not entitled under the circumstances to obtain. It is no overstatement to say this would brand most americans criminals on a daily basis. Scenarios are limitless. Imagine a secretary whose employee handbook says her emailers them account may be used only for business purposes, or a person using a dating site using false information to obtain information about a lossal mates, or student. If a government is right, any of these people commits a federal crime. Any employee that use the zoom account over the next giving to connect with relatives would be subject to federal prosecutors. The main argument is that a single two letter word in the definition under exceeds authorized access. T