Search for: "People v. Ayala"
Results 21 - 40
of 47
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
Court of Appeal Opinion: Ayala v. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 3:56 pm
Supreme Court has agreed to hear California's appeal of the decades-old death sentence given Hector Ayala for the murders of three people in 1985. [read post]
4 Oct 2020, 3:48 pm
” United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2007, 8:30 am
Ayala v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 9:10 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 2:40 pm
In Davis v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 6:25 am
As Justice Kennedy wrote in his Davis v. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 7:00 am
[People v. [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 4:09 am
Discovery Radiology Physicians, P.C.; Allstate Insurance Company, The People ex rel. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 7:28 am
Va. 2022) (likewise); Ayala v. [read post]
15 May 2010, 3:23 am
However, the scope, duration and intensity of a seizure, and any subsequent search, “remain subject to the strictures of article I, §12, and judicial review” (People v Troiano, 35 NY2d 476 [1974]; People v Marsh, 20 NY2d 98 [1967]). [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 12:21 pm
The main leaders of the organization were: Malvin Nater-Ayala, aka "Malvin"; Emanuel Rodríguez-Isaac, aka "Manuelito"; and Christian Rosario-Bonilla, aka "Christian Nora" and "Mellao. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 12:21 pm
The main leaders of the organization were: Malvin Nater-Ayala, aka "Malvin"; Emanuel Rodríguez-Isaac, aka "Manuelito"; and Christian Rosario-Bonilla, aka "Christian Nora" and "Mellao. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 8:27 am
The first, Atkins v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 8:46 am
The jury convicted Ayala, and the California Supreme Court affirmed. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 12:25 pm
Ayala (habeas) Joined blue state amicus brief in Michigan v. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 7:55 am
” People ex rel. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 4:05 am
This same battle was already fought, and lost, back in the 1980s with Smith v. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 1:09 pm
Ayala-Tapia, No. 06-2781 A conviction and sentence for importing and possessing with intent to distribute heroin are affirmed where: 1) the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant "knew" she was carrying drugs; and 2) defendant failed to meet the statutory requirements for the "safety valve" exception to apply to her case. [read post]
