Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "A Texas trial court's supplemental instruction on mitigating evidence of mental retardation for sentencing was not constitutionally adequate. Further, the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with the defendant does not violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Penry_v._Johnson holding "A Texas trial court's supplemental instruction on mitigating evidence of mental retardation for sentencing was not constitutionally adequate. Further, the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with the defendant does not violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.".