Search for: "State v. Youngblood" Results 21 - 40 of 73
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Sep 2008, 1:31 am
  In Youngblood, the Supreme Court held that the state does not have a duty to preserve physical evidence of a crime. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 6:52 am by James Bickford
Youngblood, in which it held that police have no duty to preserve potentially useful evidence. [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 1:27 pm by Stephen Bilkis
" The United States Supreme Court has defined an ex post facto law as one which "punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with sex crimes of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed as held in Collins v Youngblood and Beazell v Ohio. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 9:48 am by centerforartlaw
The second part of the judgment then focused on whether such violation was justified by the unique qualities of the property in question, the peculiarities of its discovery, or the Italian State’s interest in preserving the integrity of its cultural patrimony. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 10:23 am
The State countered that, under the United States Supreme Court's holding in Youngblood v. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 10:41 am
Trombetta-Youngblood Motions for sanctions for the destruction of favorable evidence, (see California v. [read post]
8 May 2013, 8:32 am by Jon Sands
Clarifying the holding in United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 10:44 am by Steve Kalar
   (A shame that they forget to add the button that preserves exculpatoryevidence).United States v. [read post]