Search for: "Lett v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 86
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2010, 10:22 am
The Supreme Court laid it out in a capital case, United States v. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 6:11 am
The controlling Supreme Court precedent is United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 2:14 pm
Stanley v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 2:10 pm
Lett, Barber v. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 9:43 am
Lett (09-338) - constitutionality of re-trial after a trial judge finds a jury deadlocked and declares a mistrial Tues., March 30: Dillon v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 4:40 pm
------- Title: United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 1:11 pm
The issue presented in Renico v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 8:57 am
Lett (09-338), tests whether it violates double jeopardy to stage a new trial after a state judge declared a mistrial after the jury foreman said the jurors were not going to be able to reach a verdict. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 6:46 am
Lett makes it three. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:05 pm
On Monday, November 30, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Renico v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 8:22 am
Lett (09-338), which examines double jeopardy limits after a state judge declared a mistrial on certain grounds, sentencing law and policy fans should be most excited by the grant in a long-running debate concerning the calculation of federal good time credits. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 7:20 am
Lett (09-338), tests whether it violates double jeopardy to stage a new trial after a state judge declared a mistrial after the jury foreman said the jurors were not going to be able to reach a verdict. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 7:10 am
Lett (09-338), and Barber v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 12:05 pm
Lett Issue: Whether the Michigan Supreme Court erred in denying habeas relief on double jeopardy grounds when the state trial court declared a mistrial after the foreperson said that the jury was not going to be able to reach a verdict. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 8:35 am
Further, there was evidence as to his mental and emotional state that could have been presented. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 1:05 pm
" See Christoff v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 12:37 am
State v. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 9:32 am
Neither [United States v.] [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 4:06 pm
Graham, and V. [read post]
4 Apr 2009, 6:26 pm
Graham, and V. [read post]
