Search for: "People v. Cross"
Results 321 - 340
of 5,569
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jun 2016, 8:33 am
Peters v. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 12:52 pm
When in response to the prosecutor's question, the main prosecution witness falsely testified that she had received no benefit for he testimony, the prosecutor did not correct this "misstatement" as required (see People v Novoa, 70 NY2d 490, 496-498; People v Hendricks, 2 AD3d 1450, 1451, lv denied 2 NY3d 762; People v Potter, 254 AD2d 831, 832).2. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 11:44 am
State v. [read post]
25 May 2007, 7:42 am
Static Control Components, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 2:24 pm
People care. [read post]
7 Mar 2009, 8:23 am
People v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 2:10 pm
Zeininger´s defense argued that the Constitution´s Sixth Amendment gives people the right to cross-examine the witnesses against them and also referred to a United States Supreme Court case, Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 12:42 pm
However, the parties will have to await the decision in the Actavis v Sanofi reference before they can see what the future of their case looks like. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 7:20 am
In many cases people do this without really understanding the consequences of what they are doing.The problems of using joint tenancies with children are again illustrated in a recent British Columbia case, Turner v. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 3:30 am
Duncan Kennedy, The Bitter Ironies of Williams v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:41 am
In State v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 11:43 am
Vidal v. [read post]
19 May 2020, 12:32 pm
Two cases, People v Torres and People v Roldan, outline when this might happen. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 9:55 am
Consumer Depot, Abramson v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 9:01 pm
By contrast, if police took a statement in violation of Miranda, the statement would be inadmissible in the government’s affirmative case but admissible on cross-examination of the defendant, under Harris v. [read post]
27 May 2016, 6:24 am
Additional Resources: Trotter v. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 3:19 pm
It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for people to wake up to it. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 2:32 pm
Note also that it is in general accord with People v. [read post]
14 Aug 2024, 2:24 pm
This holding conflicts with a recent ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, People v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 7:16 pm
On 12/15/09 in People v Wrotten (a name that works), the Court of Appeals, relying on People v Cintron (75 NY2d 249 [1990]) held that permitting an adult complainant living in another state to testify via real-time, two-way video after finding that because of age and poor health he was unable to travel to New York to attend court was within the trial court's inherent powers under Judiciary Law § 2-b, absent any specific statutory authority for such… [read post]
