Search for: "The People v. Cross" Results 2761 - 2780 of 6,171
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 May 2016, 4:00 am by Alice Woolley
But it reflects the considered and thoughtful opinion of people who know a lot about lawyers’ ethical obligations. [read post]
10 May 2016, 6:23 am by Eugene Volokh
Emory University’s Standing Committee for Open Expression — an official university body — has just issued another broadly speech-protective opinion interpreting the Emory Open Expression Policy. [read post]
8 May 2016, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
Supreme Court‘s recent decision in Pritchard v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 6:44 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Additional Resources: At least 7 injured in Georgetown wreck, April 17, 2016, The Boston Globe, By Adam Sennott More Blog Entries: Floyd-Tunnell v. [read post]
2 May 2016, 12:48 pm by Peter Margulies
Unfortunately, the crew and the GFC were still unknowingly talking about two different buildings: the crew “had eyes” on the MSF facility, which was marked with MSF emblems but not the more familiar red cross or red crescent symbols used globally to label medical sites, while the GFC believed that the crew was describing the intended target: the NDS prison held by the Taliban. [read post]
30 Apr 2016, 12:10 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Intermediate v. strict scrutiny standard: but that’s one of the principal disputes right now. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 6:38 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
That does define hearsay, but people may not realize that even explosive hearsay is suspect because you cannot cross-examine it. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 2:35 am by INFORRM
  Most people will be familiar with the term ‘stalking’. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 3:01 am by Emma Cross
Link to part 1- http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-jetivia-sa-anor-v-bilta-uk-ltd-ors-2015-uksc-23-part-1/ [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 8:45 am by Schachtman
The point of the cross-examination is to show that the proferred analysis is not a valid tool and lacks validity, accuracy, and probativeness. [read post]