Search for: "Rodriguez v. United States"
Results 961 - 980
of 1,080
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2008, 3:52 pm
The government's obligation to disclose Brady material encompasses not only oral, unrecorded statements of a cooperating witness that are favorable to the accused, as held in Rodriguez, previously discussed here, but also exculpatory statements communicated to the government by the witness's lawyer, the Second Circuit held in United States v. [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 10:34 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Horn, No. 03-9010, 03-9011 In a capital-murder case, petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) the time period for filing the petition was tolled during state-court proceedings, and the federal petition was therefore timely; 2) the state fugitive-forfeiture rule did not apply to procedurally default the petition; 3) the jury instructions and verdict sheet that were used during the penalty phase of petitioner's trial denied him due process of law pursuant to… [read post]
30 Aug 2008, 3:19 pm
See United States v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 4:57 pm
United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 3:38 pm
In United States v. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 9:19 am
See Elektra v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 1:44 pm
Shaibu, 920 F.2d at 1426 (citing United States v. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 2:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 12:27 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2008, 10:51 am
Rodriguez (7th Cir. 1993) 995 F.2d 776, 777–778) and pagers (United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 3:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 3:02 pm
Rodriguez). [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 12:55 pm
The court in United States v. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 10:34 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 5:22 pm
(See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 5:06 pm
United States, 151 U.S. 396 (1894)). [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 10:23 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Rowan, No. 05-30536 On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, a 60-month sentence of supervised release following a conviction for possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) defendant's sentence is a non-Guideline sentence since it falls outside the applicable range and was not based on an allowed departure; but 2) in light of the deferential standard set forth in Gall, there was no significant procedural error in the sentencing decision. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 7:46 pm
It also demands that with regard to "reverse Batson" challenges, the defense speaks with one voice, as illustrated in United States v. [read post]
