Search for: "EX PARTE JUNIUS SEREAL, Applicant"
Results 1 - 4
of 4
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Apr 2013, 10:57 am
As the Court of Criminal Appeals explained in its March 6, 2013, per curiam opinion in Ex Parte Junius Sereal (read the opinion here): The DPS report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 10:57 am
As the Court of Criminal Appeals explained in its March 6, 2013, per curiam opinion in Ex Parte Junius Sereal (read the opinion here): The DPS report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 12:35 pm
In March 2013, in the case of Ex Parte Junius Sereal (read the opinion here), the CCA wrote in its opinion: The DPS report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 3:59 pm
In their March 6, 2013, per curiam opinion in Ex Parte Junius Sereal (read the opinion here) the High Court wrote: The DPS report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct. [read post]
