Search for: "United States v. Teague"
Results 61 - 80
of 142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2013, 7:24 pm
United States, No. 11-820 (Feb. 20, 2013).We've blogged about what I still believe to be the landmark decision of Padilla v. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 10:32 am
It adopted the anti-retroactivity rule of Teague v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 2:21 pm
United States (1996) extends that far.Kelley v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 5:56 am
” United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 5:56 am
” United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 9:00 pm
In that context, the United States Supreme Court has -- with narrow exceptions -- made the benefits of its new rulings unavailable to criminal defendants who have already exhausted appellate relief. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 3:30 pm
En Teague v. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
It is settled (thanks to Teague v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 5:00 am
Gorsuch explains: Under Teague v. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 3:53 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2006, 10:28 am
Righting Romm: The Ninth Circuit blog explains how United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 3:00 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 4:42 pm
Both the United States Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals have held that once a defendant chooses to be represented by counsel, counsel and not the defendant has control over most strategic decisions are made by the attorney and not the defendant (Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745, 751 [1983]; People v White, 73 NY2d 468, 478 [1989]). [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 7:05 am
United States, which declared the Johnson rule substantive for purposes of the retroactivity analysis set forth in Teague v. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 7:18 pm
United States, which declared the Johnson rule substantive for purposes of the retroactivity analysis set forth in Teague v. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 5:40 pm
Teague, 212 N.J. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 8:36 am
United States to allow a redaction that replaced Greene’s name with blanks in his non-testifying codefendants’ statements. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 11:51 am
The state trial court ruled that McCoy did not fit within the Supreme Court’s exceptions under Teague v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 10:09 am
The case is United States v. [read post]
21 May 2020, 1:38 pm
Under Teague v. [read post]
