{
  "id": "RS20620",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS20620",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100014,
      "date": "2000-07-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:35:17.406941",
      "title": "Capital Punishment: Summary of Supreme Court Decisions During the 1999-00 Term",
      "summary": "With the exception of the Supreme Court's ruling in  Williams v. Taylor, \n(1)   the Court did not find any\nserious reversible error in the lower courts' opinions reviewed during the 1999-2000 term that relate\nto capital punishment.     In  Ramdass v. Angelone,  (2) \n it was decided that a  habeas corpus  petitioner\ncould not obtain relief from his death sentence on the ground that the state courts should have taken\na less technical approach to determining whether he was entitled to have the penalty phase jury\ninstructed that he would be ineligible for parole if the jury recommended a sentence of life\nimprisonment. The state courts reasoned that because judgment had not been entered on one of the\npetitioner's convictions, he did not have three \"strikes\" for purposes of the state's parole ineligibility\nlaw. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision on June 12, 2000, reasoning that the entry of a\njudgment of conviction upon a jury's guilty verdict in another case was not a forgone conclusion in\nview of the possibility of post-trial motions.   In  Weeks v. Angelone,   (3)  the Court affirmed the Fourth\nCircuit Court of Appeals denying the petitioner's appeal of a death penalty sentence and federal\n habeas corpus  petition, deciding that the jury instructions were constitutionally adequate. \nIn \nWilliams v. Taylor,  (4)   it was generally recognized that a defendant is\nbarred from proceeding with\nfederal  habeas corpus  claims which were not developed in the state  habeas\ncorpus  petition, however,\nthe Court allowed an evidentiary hearing on two claims due to the petitioner's diligence in pursuing\nthem.\n     1.  \u00a0120 S.  Ct. 1479 (2000).\n  2.  \u00a0Slip Op. No. 99-7000 (U.S. June 12, 2000).\n  3.  \u00a0120 S.  Ct. 727 (2000).\n  4.  \u00a0120 S.  Ct. 1479 (2000).",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS20620",
          "sha1": "9e17cba1b1b04464ac755494bb8f651601be0977",
          "filename": "files/20000706_RS20620_9e17cba1b1b04464ac755494bb8f651601be0977.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000706_RS20620_9e17cba1b1b04464ac755494bb8f651601be0977.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}