2007-08-05 20:25:25 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If there was a question to whether or not he was guilty or innocent, then possibly. Since he was caught red handed and obviously guilty as sin, I would say, NO.
2007-08-05 20:29:55 · answer #1 · answered by s g 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. Almost any case can go that far if there's a good reason. It can be a question about how the Constitution applies to the case, or about the law applies (the Supreme Court doesn't just hear cases about the Constitution). It won't just be about just the facts of the case, though.
2007-08-06 09:34:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court hears cases that have constitutional questions. When Vick is convicted, you can be sure he will appeal. I don't see how any constitutional issues are involved here. His lawyers could petition the court to be heard, but they would be turned down. And no lawyer would be dumb enough to do that.
2007-08-06 04:44:56 · answer #3 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he has to take it that far. I don't think it will. The trial in Richmond hasn't even started yet. And S G, he was not caught red handed. He was not even there. It could be that he let people use his house (and Michael Vick is known to be a generous, giving king of person) and they took advantage. I believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty. And don't put the race thing into it either. I am a european-american woman, so don't say I think that simply becaus I could be african -american.
2007-08-06 03:42:17 · answer #4 · answered by Marje E. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In theory yes -- if there are legal constitutional issue that the court needs to address, or if the federal statutes are being interpreted very differently in different appellate circuits (called a "circuit split").
In practice, there's nothing about this case that raises any significant constitutional concerns, so it's unlikely.
2007-08-06 12:00:19 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋