Search for: "Matter of Melendez"
Results 81 - 100
of 165
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2011, 12:50 pm
Supreme Court in 2009 decided Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 9:17 am
If there is a conviction, however, most criminal defendants appeal the matter. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 11:38 am
With the exception of Melendez, the defendants in this matter have been arrested. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 11:38 am
With the exception of Melendez, the defendants in this matter have been arrested. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 2:10 pm
WHETHER THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DECLINING TO APPLY MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 9:58 am
Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and specifically held in Melendez-Diaz that forensic analysis is neither fool-proof nor immune from manipulation. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 5:09 am
” That doesn’t conclude the matter; there’s still the question of harmless error. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 10:33 am
In a partial concurrence, Justice Sotomayor wrote separately to detail the reasons she believed the report at issue to be testimonial, specifically because its primary purposes was evidentiary, and second to emphasize the differences between the instant matter and Melendez-Diaz, primarily that the State did not attempt to justify the entry of the report under alternate means. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 6:19 pm
In an important gloss on its 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:12 pm
But Justice Ginsburg treats the matter delicately, presumably because formality was (unfortunately) essential for Justice Thomas’s vote. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:52 pm
In 2009, in a case called Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 4:58 am
It once more assumes for itself a central role in mandating detailed evidentiary rules, thereby extending and confirming Melendez-Diaz’s "vast potential to disrupt criminal procedures. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:49 am
New Mexico, the Court narrowly repulsed an attack on Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 9:28 am
New Mexico, the sequel to Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 2:56 pm
" Also, under the Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 2:10 pm
Zeininger´s defense argued that the Constitution´s Sixth Amendment gives people the right to cross-examine the witnesses against them and also referred to a United States Supreme Court case, Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 1:00 am
In [*2]response, the plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing either that she commenced the action within the applicable three-year limitations period, or that the continuous representation toll applied in this case, since all of the documentary evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the legal representation had ended more than three years before this action was commenced, and there was no mutual understanding of a need for ongoing legal representation in the underlying… [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 11:01 am
The Los Angeles judges argued that it did not matter that the officer lacked direct knowledge. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 9:38 am
Along with Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 2:42 am
It could have been, and under an objective test, any argument that appears plausible, no matter how hard one has to squint, is good enough. [read post]
