Timeline for When a criminal statute is struck down as unconstitutional, what happens to people who were convicted under it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2018 at 14:49 | comment | added | Ed999 | The principle involved is that the Supreme Court is, in strict legal theory, declaring what the law has always been. The court decision might have the practical effect of changing how the law is henceforth applied or enforced, and people might have been wrongly convicted by lower courts in earlier cases, but the legal principle involved is that the decision by the Supreme Court is merely declaratory, i.e. the defendant applies for - and is granted - a declaration that the law under which he was convicted is (and always has been) void. | |
| Nov 28, 2018 at 9:49 | comment | added | Ed999 | This answer is clearly wrong. It fails to give any reasoning in support of the actual answer given, i.e. the very last sentence, and it fails to cite any case law or statutory authority. | |
| May 22, 2016 at 21:37 | comment | added | Conrad Frix | "If that ruling is that a law is invalid for whatever reason". I think the reason matters. As discussed in Is it better to be fair or final? "Retroactivity turns on whether a change in constitutional law involves substance or procedure" | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 8:47 | history | edited | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 199 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2015 at 7:52 | comment | added | phoog | This is wrong. Do you have any sources to back up any of your assertions? | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 23:14 | history | answered | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |