Search for: "Brady v. State of California"
Results 281 - 300
of 302
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2008, 9:17 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 7:13 am
Rule 8(b) and Rule 14; and 2) the government violated Brady, when it failed to produce arguably exculpatory evidence with respect to a charged co-conspirator until the week of trial. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008 US v. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 1:09 pm
Miller, No. 06-11078 A conviction for tax evasion is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in various evidentiary rulings by the district court; 3) a claim the indictment was duplicitous failed as defendant was not prejudiced; and 4) a Brady claim failed as the cumulative effect of the suppressed evidence at issue did not undermine confidence in the verdict. [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 8:46 am
Phillips, No. 07-0522 Grant of habeas petition ordering conviction be vacated based on state's Brady violation is vacated in part as to barring of retrial of count of depraved indifference murder as petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies with respect to that relief. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE UPPER DECK COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v.ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 12:13 pm
Bland, No. 06-3223 Conviction for bank robbery is affirmed where: 1) there was no Brady violation since evidence suppressed by the prosecution was not material to an issue at defendant's trial; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to conduct an independent in camera review of the evidence in question. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Defendant's California conviction for grand theft from a person in violation of section 487(2) of the California Penal Code was a "violent felony" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
However, denial of one petition is reversed where the state court's lack of notification and petitioner's prompt filing after receiving a response to his inquiry to the state court justified tolling. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Bornhorst, No. 06-3729 "In a suit raising claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and for state law malicious prosecution, defamation, and tortious interference with a prospective contract, summary judgment for defendants on all claims is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's arrest for murder was unsupported by probable cause, and thus defendant-prosecutor was not entitled to qualified immunity; 2) the district court erred in… [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:28 am
" California Appellate Districts, January 17, 2008 "Amtower v. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 11:17 am
" Two years later, Printz v. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 11:44 pm
The case accepted by the justices comes from California, where a law passed in 2000 prohibits employers from using money they receive from the state to oppose or support unionization efforts. [read post]
26 Oct 2007, 11:45 am
Supreme Court's decision in Buckeye Check Cashing v. [read post]
26 Oct 2007, 8:57 am
Supreme Court's decision in Buckeye Check Cashing v. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 3:42 am
SC06-2391 v. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 1:55 am
United States, 914 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2006) (discussed here), which analyzes blank">Crawford v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 11:03 am
Brady v. [read post]
23 Dec 2006, 10:50 am
ESTAuburn Tigers (10) v. [read post]
