Abstract
In Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether defendants facing the death penalty but not yet convicted could challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty statute for those under 21. The trial court had ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment for defendants under 21. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the ruling, finding that the defendants lacked standing to raise the challenge because they had not been sentenced yet.
Abstract
In Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether defendants facing the death penalty but not yet convicted could challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty statute for those under 21. The trial court had ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment for defendants under 21. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the ruling, finding that the defendants lacked standing to raise the challenge because they had not been sentenced yet.
Summary
In the case of Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether defendants facing the death penalty, but not yet convicted, could challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty statute specifically for individuals under the age of 21. The trial court had determined that the death penalty for those under 21 violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed this decision, concluding that the defendants lacked the legal standing to raise this challenge because they had not yet been sentenced.
Abstract
In Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether defendants facing the death penalty but not yet convicted could challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty statute for those under 21. The trial court had ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment for defendants under 21. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the ruling, finding that the defendants lacked standing to raise the challenge because they had not been sentenced yet.
Summary
In the case of Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court grappled with the question of whether defendants facing capital punishment, but not yet convicted, could legally challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty statute as it applied to individuals under the age of 21. The lower court had ruled that the death penalty, as applied to those under 21, violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed this decision. The court found that the defendants lacked "standing," meaning they did not have the legal right to bring the challenge at that stage of the proceedings. This was because they had not yet been sentenced, so the court reasoned that the question of whether the death penalty was constitutional in their specific case was not yet ripe for review.
Abstract
In Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether defendants facing the death penalty but not yet convicted could challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty statute for those under 21. The trial court had ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment for defendants under 21. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the ruling, finding that the defendants lacked standing to raise the challenge because they had not been sentenced yet.
Summary
In the case of Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court examined whether a defendant facing the death penalty but not yet found guilty could argue that Kentucky's death penalty law is unfair for those under 21 years old.
The lower court had decided that the death penalty was against the Eighth Amendment, which prevents cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed this decision, arguing that the defendants could not challenge the law yet because they hadn't been sentenced.
Abstract
In Commonwealth v. Bredhold (2020), the Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether defendants facing the death penalty but not yet convicted could challenge the constitutionality of Kentucky's death penalty statute for those under 21. The trial court had ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment for defendants under 21. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the ruling, finding that the defendants lacked standing to raise the challenge because they had not been sentenced yet.
Summary
In a case called Commonwealth v. Bredhold, the Kentucky Supreme Court looked at a law about the death penalty. The court wanted to know if people who could get the death penalty, but hadn't been found guilty yet, could challenge the law.
A lower court said that the law was unfair for people under 21 years old, but the Kentucky Supreme Court said that the people who had not been sentenced could not challenged the law.