Search for: "US v. Diaz"
Results 341 - 360
of 873
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2012, 5:37 am
Cirillo also admitted “he had taken oxycodone and used marijuana that day, and he had previously been addicted to Oxycontin. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 2:36 am
Diaz, No. 1:09-CR-0037-WBH, 2011 WL 344093, at *1 (Jan. 31, 2011) (quoting Fed. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 3:45 pm
Waterman’s brain injury appeal, Burns v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 7:57 am
Sibelius), some achieve moment (Miranda v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 9:41 am
In Mayflower Transit, L.L.C. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 7:56 am
Jan. 13, 2005) (citations omitted)(same); Diaz Arboleda v. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 5:46 am
") AC32608 - State v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 11:56 am
Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and Melendez-Diaz. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 7:36 am
Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976); Hampton v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 7:47 am
Because our Supreme Court told us in Crawford v. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 12:37 pm
The case, Eligio Cedeño v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 8:55 am
Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 237 (2d Cir. 2006) (autopsy reports as public reports were “not subject to the strictures of the Confrontation Clause”) [Note, case decided before Melendez-Diaz]; United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:45 am
Diaz, 2011 WL 6158 (Cal. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 11:32 pm
Oakes v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 6:48 pm
Melbourne v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 2:12 pm
Washington, Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 8:21 am
The People could not substitute her testimony for that of the actual analyst who performed the tests in order to avoid a violation of the Confrontation Clause (see Bullcoming v New Mexico, ___ US ___, ___, 131 S Ct 2705, 2709-2710). [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:37 am
The growing use of arbitration clauses in things like insurance contracts can be a real problem for unsuspecting parties, but the use of arbitration clauses in Trusts hit a roadblock this year with the Court’s decision in Diaz v. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 12:41 pm
In Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
Negative judicial reactions to the First Amendment may be imperfectly akin to negative judicial reactions to Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
