Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q4860369> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 48 of
48
with 100 triples per page.
- Q4860369 subject Q6996306.
- Q4860369 subject Q6997753.
- Q4860369 subject Q6998896.
- Q4860369 subject Q8621224.
- Q4860369 abstract "Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society in this Texas death penalty case. The American Psychiatric Association submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data.In Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), the Supreme Court previously ruled on a Texas death penalty case regarding the use of a psychiatric examination to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial to predict future dangerousness. In that case the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applied to pretrial psychiatric examinations by a prosecution psychiatrist who later testified regarding the defendant's future dangerousness without warning the defendant that such evidence could be used against him. The Court reasoned that although a defendant has no generalized constitutional right to remain silent at a psychiatric examination limited to the issues of sanity or competency, full Miranda warnings must be given with respect to testimony concerning future dangerousness.".
- Q4860369 wikiPageExternalLink transcript.mr.douglas.m.becker.
- Q4860369 wikiPageExternalLink hastings-3_-2.htm.
- Q4860369 wikiPageExternalLink Scientific-Evidence-Relevancy-test.html.
- Q4860369 wikiPageExternalLink 1982_82_6080.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q1001059.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q1056352.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q11201.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q132821.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q1439.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q1468920.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q147027.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q1801315.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q211346.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q220596.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q240340.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q2624821.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q312199.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q3694688.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q384593.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q46350.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q466524.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q5156298.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q5400950.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q600751.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996306.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q6997753.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998896.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q7880285.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q83021.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q8454.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q8621224.
- Q4860369 wikiPageWikiLink Q908639.
- Q4860369 fullname "Thomas A. Barefoot, Petitioner v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent".
- Q4860369 type Case.
- Q4860369 type LegalCase.
- Q4860369 type SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase.
- Q4860369 type UnitOfWork.
- Q4860369 type Situation.
- Q4860369 type Thing.
- Q4860369 type Q2334719.
- Q4860369 comment "Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society in this Texas death penalty case.".
- Q4860369 label "Barefoot v. Estelle".
- Q4860369 name "Thomas A. Barefoot, Petitioner v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent".