Search for: "Com. v. Crawford, S."
Results 61 - 80
of 122
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2010, 4:30 am
But maybe it’s time to take a second look at the validity of Craig and the “business records” exemption from Crawford in light of the US Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 3:48 am
Conley also provides more Adventures with Crawford v. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 4:26 am
Three weeks ago the 6th Circuit ended Colon’s odyssey through the criminal justice system by concluding that the admission of those statements didn’t violate Colon’s confrontation rights under Crawford v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 3:38 am
In fact, a large reason for the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 3:45 am
The result was dictated by last year’s decision in Williams v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 4:23 am
Crawford is concerned with the right of confrontation, and in Giles v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 3:50 am
One of the other things I thought about was a comment by Justice Scalia in the oral argument in Michigan v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 5:09 am
” While Crawford and Davis were decided unanimously, Giles v. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 3:18 am
Hearsay is admissible in a hearing to revoke community control sanctions, but are testimonial statements barred by Crawford v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 3:23 am
That includes the big Crawford case, Michigan v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 3:42 am
Bryant, concerning the scope of the “ongoing emergency” standard for determining whether a victim’s statement is testimonial under Crawford v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 3:45 am
Virginia, which was to further explore the ramifications of the Court’s decision at the end of the 2008 term in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 3:46 am
Ohio, but would now be testimonial under Crawford v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 3:43 am
I think the bigger problem is that the database approach views cases quantitatively, rather than qualitatively: Blakely and Crawford are no more significant than Arizona v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:51 am
Massachusetts: is a “notice and demand statute” — a statute giving notice to a drug defendant of a chemist’s analysis of the drug, with an advisement that the analyst’s report will be admissible unless the defendant demands live testimony — consistent with the Confrontation Clause as defined by Crawford v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 3:39 am
The Supreme Court’s 2009 term ends, with the big decision being McDonald v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 4:55 am
The court first dealt with Crawford in State v. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 5:26 am
These are clearly “testimonial” statements under Crawford v. [read post]
