MR. RAY RICE --- Your Contract Is Still Good- Get Your Money The remedy must always be related to the condition alleged to offend the Constitution and constitutional rights. . . . Milliken v. Bradley, 418 US 717 (1974). Swann standard the scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation. Remedial decree must closely fit the constitutional violation; the person(s) who was (were) unconstitutionally denied a legal right, an opportunity, or advantage must be placed (put) back in the position they would have occupied in the absence of discrimination. See Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280 and United States v. Virginia et al., 518 U.S. 515 (1996). The remedy (remedial in nature) must be designed as nearly as possible to restore the victims of discriminatory conduct and false arrest to the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct. CRITICAL: A remedy for a constitutional violation must place the victims of constitutional violation in the “position they would have occupied in the absence of the constitutional violation. Thus, Where a defendant shows ineffective assistance has caused the rejection of a plea leading to a more severe sentence at trial, the remedy must “neutralize the taint” of this constitutional violation, United States v. Morrison, 449 U. S. 361 , but must not grant a windfall to the defendant or needlessly squander the resources the State properly invested in the criminal prosecution. In other words, there must be a remedy for constitutional violations. United UNITED STATES v. MECHANIK, 475 U.S. 66 (1986). Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012); United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); and United States v. Morrison, 449 U. S. 361, 364 (1981). id., at 365 .
Posted on: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:05:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015