Search for: "Crawford v. United States"
Results 181 - 200
of 727
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Nov 2007, 7:58 am
Here is the abstract:Through Crawford v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 3:04 pm
Reuters reports on the United States Supreme Court’s denial of cert today in Oren Adar v. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 6:54 am
United States, No. 10-5443. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 5:25 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 7:42 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 5:38 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Jul 2015, 7:03 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 7:48 am
United States, 2011 U.S. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 5:13 pm
In Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts (129 S.Ct. 2527 [June 25, 2009]), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause requires that in order for the prosecution to be able to introduce a forensic laboratory report at trial, the prosecutor must present a live witness to testify to the truth of the statements made in the report subject to cross-examination. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 1:41 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Oct 2008, 8:01 am
Government computer deportation records admitted under public records hearsay exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, in United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 12:22 pm
NMCCA issued an important published opinion yesterday that was posted on NKO today: United States v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 10:15 am
In Crawford v. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 3:27 pm
See United States v. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 1:25 am
1st_Circuit_seal.png First Circuit vacates and remands conviction based on Confrontation Clause violation under Crawford; during the investigating agent's trial testimony, details were elicited about the statements made by the defendant's non-testifying accomplices (who confessed and pled out before trial) which described the defendant's role in the crime, provided no insight into the course of the investigation and was used by the prosecution as proof of… [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 7:11 am
("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) admitted into evidence an out-of-court statement of the victim, violating his rights secured under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 5:10 am
Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of [a number of] exceptions applies to the particular statement being made. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 3:30 am
In United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2007, 8:13 am
Via Scotusblog, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari this morning in Rothgery v. [read post]
8 May 2009, 7:28 pm
" United States v. [read post]
