| 词条 | Durham v. United States (1971) |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Durham v. United States |ArgueDate= |ArgueYear= |DecideDate=March 8 |DecideYear=1971 |FullName=George Washington Durham, Petitioner, v. United States |USVol=401 |USPage=481 |ParallelCitations=91 S. Ct. 858; 28 L. Ed. 2d 200 |OralArgument= |OralReargument= |OpinionAnnouncement= |Prior=Defendant convicted (D. Or.); reversed and remanded, 403 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1968); on remand, defendant convicted (D. Or.); affirmed, 419 F.2d 392 (9th Cir. 1969). |Holding=The death of a criminal defendant during the pendency of direct review – including during the consideration of a petition for certiorari by the Supreme Court – abates the criminal case ab initio. |SCOTUS=1970–1971 |Majority=Per curiam |JoinMajority=Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, and White |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence2= |JoinConcurrence2= |Concurrence/Dissent= |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |Dissent=Marshall |JoinDissent=Burger, Stewart |Dissent2=Blackmun |JoinDissent2= |LawsApplied= |Overruled={{ussc|name=Dove v. United States|1=423|2=325|3=1976}} }}Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the death of a defendant pending a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on direct review of the criminal conviction will cause the Court to vacate the conviction. In a per curiam opinion, the Court wrote that "[t]he unanimity of the lower federal courts" in vacating criminal convictions when the defendant dies during direct review was "impressive" and accordingly vacated the original conviction.[1] In a one-sentence dissent, Justice Marshall, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Stewart, wrote that the Court should dismiss only the petition for writ of certiorari rather than the entire conviction, writing: MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, believes that the case should be disposed of as follows: Justice Blackmun wrote a separate dissenting opinion, noting that the petitioner had filed his petition out of time and that the Court should not dismiss a criminal conviction "which was unsuccessfully appealed throughout the entire appeal process to which the petitioner was entitled as of right".[3] The Court's decision in this case and other abatement cases has been criticized for allowing convicted criminal defendants to escape the collateral consequences of their convictions, including restitution orders.[4][5] The Court's decision in Durham was later overruled in Dove v. United States.[6][7] References1. ^Durham v. United States, {{ussc|401|481|1971|pin=483}}. 2. ^Durham v. United States, {{ussc|401|481|1971|pin=483}} (Marshall, J., dissenting). 3. ^Durham v. United States, {{ussc|401|481|1971|pin=484–485}} (Blackmun, J., dissenting). 4. ^{{cite journal|first1=Bierer, Sabrina|last1=Margret|title=The Importance of Being Earned: How Abatement After Death Collaterally Harms Insurers, Families, and Society at Large|url=https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol78/iss4/13|journal=Brooklyn Law Review|date=2013 |issn=0007-2362|volume=78|issue=4}} 5. ^{{cite journal|first1=Razel, Timothy|last1=A.|title=Dying To Get Away With It: How the Abatement Doctrine Thwarts Justice--And What Should Be Done Instead|url=https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss4/7/|journal=Fordham Law Review|date= 2007 |volume=75|issue=4}} 6. ^{{ussc|423|325|1976|name=Dove v. United States}} ("To the extent that Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971), may be inconsistent with this ruling, Durham is overruled."). 7. ^{{cite journal|first1=LeRoy, Michael|last1=H.|title=Death of a Precedent: Should Justices Rethink Their Consensus Norms?|url=https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol43/iss2/3/|journal=Hofstra Law Review|date=Winter 2014 |volume=43|issue=2}} External links
| case = Durham v. United States, {{ussc|401|481|1971|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/481/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep401/usrep401481/usrep401481.pdf 3 : 1971 in United States case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。