Search for: "Bail v. State" Results 901 - 920 of 1,718
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The language "opportunity to be heard" is still present in CPL § 510.20(2) for applications for recognizance or bail. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 2:37 pm by Miriam Baer
 And yet, following the DC Circuit's decision in United States v Maynard (which eventually became United States v Jones when it was decided by the Supreme Court), individual jurists and scholars have increasingly embraced a mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment, under which a discrete action (watching someone in public, seeking their phone records via a grand jury subpoena) becomes unconstitutional when government officials engage in that action too… [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 2:16 pm
The United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 2:35 pm by Joe Patrice
I wonder if Todd Graham will slimily bail on another school and join his old boss at Texas when Mack Brown is unceremoniously fired. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 2:15 pm
I totally agree.Of course the state can prohibit bail bondsmen from soliciting business from arrestees at the jail. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 8:41 am by Roy Black
Jones) or third party business records (US v. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 11:18 am by David Markus
SREBNICK: The right to be released on bail, that is, the right not to be detained all the way until trial, under this Court's precedent in United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 12:05 am by Laura Sandwell
R (Reilly & Anor) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, heard 29 July 2013. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 10:59 am
Like every other court in New York State, Supreme Court may not convict a defendant of a felony absent compliance with the indictment and waiver of indictment provisions in article I, § 6 of the New York Constitution as was held in People v Wiltshire. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 10:21 am by Luke Rioux
The panel held that the state court’s failure to comply with Brady v. [read post]