Does not offend equal protection principles by failing to provide capital defendants with the same procedural safeguards as non-capital defendants at the penalty phase?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Brooks, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 331, 3 Cal.5th 1, 396 P.3d 480 (Cal. 2017):
The failure to afford capital defendants at the penalty phase the same procedural safeguards afforded to noncapital defendants does not offend equal protection principles, because the two groups are not similarly situated. (People v. Whalen (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1, 91, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 673, 294 P.3d 915.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does the failure to provide procedural safeguards at the penalty phase offend equal protection principles? (California, United States of America)
Does a capital sentencing scheme violate equal protection by denying procedural safeguards that would otherwise be available to non-capital defendants? (California, United States of America)
Does a capital sentencing scheme violate equal protection by denying procedural safeguards that would otherwise be available to non-capital defendants? (California, United States of America)
Is a non-capitalized defendant entitled to the same procedural protections as a capital defendant? (California, United States of America)
Does the death penalty law violate equal protection by denying procedural rights to non-capital defendants? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for an equal protection claim under the equal protection principles when a defendant is convicted of receiving a stolen vehicle? (California, United States of America)
Does the death penalty law violate equal protection by denying procedural rights to non-capital defendants? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's failure to testify at the penalty phase an error not to instruct the jury to refrain from drawing any inference from the fact that defendant did not testify at penalty phase? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have grounds to argue that a trial court prejudicially errs in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte at the penalty phase to disregard the no-sympathy instruction at the guilt phase? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the principle of equal protection when it comes to providing trial transcripts to indigent defendants on appeal? (California, United States of America)
