Search for: "Bullcoming v. New Mexico"
Results 61 - 80
of 196
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2012, 8:21 am
New Mexico, 131 S. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 2:12 pm
Massachusetts, and Bullcoming 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]
28 Dec 2011, 12:41 pm
More recently, in Bullcoming v. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 572 (1942) and Diehl v. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 10:59 am
New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011). [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 5:54 pm
New Mexico and the recent line of cases dating to Crawford v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:41 am
The theory that analysts are fungible took a hit last year in Bullcoming v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 11:01 am
In its recent opinion in Bullcoming v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 6:12 am
Bryant and Bullcoming v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 1:07 pm
Massachusetts and Bullcoming v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 3:52 am
New Mexico. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 12:42 pm
In last Term’s Bullcoming v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 6:07 am
New Mexico, Michigan v. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 9:09 pm
Even in quirky cases like Bullcoming v. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 5:00 pm
This year, in Bullcoming v New Mexico (564 U.S. __,131 S.Ct. 2705 [2011]), the Court held that under the confrontation clause “the accused’s right is to be confronted with the analyst who made the certification, unless that analyst is unavailable at trial, and the accused had an opportunity, pretrial, to cross-examine that particular scientist. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 8:00 pm
In a recent United States Supreme Court case (Bullcoming v. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 12:50 pm
New Mexico, 131 S. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 4:02 pm
New Mexico. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 9:00 pm
New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011). [read post]
