The Oyez Project: Criminal Procedure Issues - Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Non-Death Penalty Arguments

Austin v. United States - Oral Argument

Tue, 20 Apr 1993 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Estelle v. Gamble - Oral Argument

Sat, 02 Oct 1976 19:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Ewing v. California - Oral Argument

Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:00:00 -0500

Unknown.

Farmer v. Brennan, Warden - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Jan 1994 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Harmelin v. Michigan - Oral Argument

Mon, 05 Nov 1990 12:00:00 -0500

Following his conviction under Michigan law for possession of over 650 grams of cocaine, Ronald Harmelin was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Harmelin challenged his sentence as cruel and unusual, claiming it was disproportionate to the crime he committed and was statutorily mandated without consideration for the fact that he had no prior felony convictions. On appeal from an affirmance by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Helling v. McKinney - Oral Argument

Wed, 13 Jan 1993 12:00:00 -0500

William McKinney, a Nevada state prisoner, sued his warden and several other prison officials for violating his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke. McKinney shared a cell with a man who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. He claimed that his health - both current and future - was being harmed by the smoke, and that the prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to the risk in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294. After a federal magistrate ruled that he did not have an Eighth Amendment right to a smoke-free environment and that he had failed to prove any "serious medical needs," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that he should have been given another opportunity to prove that the smoke levels were sufficient to constitute an unreasonable danger to his future health.

Hope v. Pelzer - Oral Argument

Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:00:00 -0500

As an Alabama prison inmate, Larry Hope was twice handcuffed to a hitching post for disruptive conduct. Both times prison guards handcuffed Hope above shoulder height, and when he tried moving his arms to improve circulation, the handcuffs cut into his wrists. During the second incident, guards order Hope to remove his shirt and he spent seven hours on the hitching post in the sun. While there, he was given one or two water breaks, but no bathroom breaks. Hope filed a civil suit against the guards. Subsequently, a Magistrate Judge found that the guards were entitled to qualified immunity. Ultimately affirming, the Court of Appeals, while finding that the hitching post's use for punitive purposes violated the Eighth Amendment, concluded that the guards nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.

Hudson v. McMillian - Oral Argument

Wed, 13 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500

Keith Hudson, a Louisiana inmate, claimed that he was beaten by Marvin Woods and Jack McMillian, two prison guards, while their supervisor, Arthur Mezo, watched. Hudson sued the guards in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows individuals to bring suit for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." Hudson argued that they had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The District Court ruled that the guards had used force when there was no need to do so, violating the Eighth Amendment, and that Hudson was therefore entitled to damages. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, however, finding that an inmate must demonstrate "significant injury" when he claims that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by the use of excessive force.

Hutto v. Finney - Oral Argument

Tue, 21 Feb 1978 12:00:00 -0500

Litigation challenging the conditions in the Arkansas prison system began in 1969. In evaluating the diet and sleeping arrangements of the inmates, the physical condition of cells, and the behavior of prison guards (some of whom were inmates who had been issued guns), a District Court called the conditions which inmates were forced to face "a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world." This case involved a challenge to the practice of "punitive isolation" in Arkansas prisons which was often done for indiscriminate periods of time in crowded windowless cells.

Ingraham v. Wright - Oral Argument, Part 1

Tue, 02 Nov 1976 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Ingraham v. Wright - Oral Argument, Part 2

Tue, 02 Nov 1976 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Rhodes v. Chapman - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Mar 1981 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Robinson v. California - Oral Argument

Tue, 17 Apr 1962 12:00:00 -0500

A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics." Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail. A state appellate court affirmed Robinson's conviction on appeal.

Rummel v. Estelle - Oral Argument

Mon, 07 Jan 1980 12:00:00 -0500

After being convicted of three felonies over a period of fifteen years, William James Rummel was given a life prison sentence as mandated by a Texas recidivist statute. Rummel's offenses involved approximately $230, and all of the offenses were nonviolent. Lower courts rejected Rummel's challenge to the sentence.

Solem v. Helm - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Mar 1983 12:00:00 -0500

Helm was convicted of writing a check from a fictitious account, a crime carrying with it a five-year jail sentence. However, since this was his seventh felony conviction in South Dakota since 1964, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under a state recidivist statute.

United States v. Bajakajian - Oral Argument

Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:00:00 -0500

During a routine check of departing international flight passengers, customs officers discovered $357,144 on the person of Hosep Bajakajian. In addition to charging him, under 31 U.S.C. Section 5316, of attempting to leave the United States with an unreported sum in excess of $10,000 cash, the government also sought forfeiture of the entire $357,144 under 18 U.S.C. Section 982 providing that the deliberate violation of Section 5316 shall result in the forfeiture of "any property involved in such an offense." After having its forfeiture claim rejected in both a district court and the Ninth Circuit, as excessively unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted the government certiorari.

Whitley v. Albers - Oral Argument

Tue, 10 Dec 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Wilson v. Seiter - Oral Argument

Mon, 07 Jan 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.