Search for: "State v. Cross"
Results 921 - 940
of 14,900
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Apr 2008, 1:30 pm
In No. 07-6053, Giles v. [read post]
10 Apr 2009, 5:03 am
(Charles Mallin, Debra Windsor for the State and David A. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 6:06 am
In the case of Orum v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 11:24 am
In Resch v. [read post]
Motor Carrier Exemption Applies to Drivers Who can be Expected to Drive Interstate Continue Reading…
19 May 2015, 11:24 am
In Resch v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 11:41 am
In February the U.S Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 1:30 pm
Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. [read post]
17 May 2018, 1:06 pm
Coupled with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 8:58 am
DE C.V. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 9:53 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 1:56 pm
”Apotex’s Second ClaimIn his earlier judgment in Lilly v 8PM, Arnold J had held that the ex turpi causa rule applied where the beneficiary of the cross-undertaking has to rely to a substantial extent upon his own illegality in order to establish the loss claimed. [read post]
5 May 2014, 4:54 pm
The defendant relied on the Crawford v Washington 542 US 36 [2004], in his objections as the admission of the statements into evidence violated his Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 6:15 am
1st_Circuit_seal.png In a pyramid scheme case, the First Circuit affirms the limitation of defense cross-examination of a prosecution witness about the nature of the charges against the witness currently pending in state court; trial judge properly allowed defense to raise only the probative aspect of the extrinsic evidence (about the possible motivation of the witness to ingratiate himself with the government by cooperating in the pyramid scheme prosecution),… [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 1:28 am
Washington had held that out of court testimonial statements cannt be admitted against a defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him.The decision in United States v. [read post]
25 May 2014, 7:10 am
North Carolina The United States Supreme Court is also considering the case of Brewington v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 9:51 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 5:10 am
I have done several posts on this blog (here, here, here, here, here, and here) about the inaccuracy of regular and cross-racial eyewitness identifications and whether expert testimony about this inaccuracy should be allowed. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 6:54 am
[t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is...consistent with the declarant's testimony... [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 6:22 am
[t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is...inconsistent with the declarant's testimony,... [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 6:37 pm
The recently decided NJ Supreme Court case of State v. [read post]
