Search for: "Brady v. State of California" Results 101 - 120 of 302
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Apr 2012, 10:41 am by Kent Scheidegger
Robinson is a capital habeas case in which the Sixth Circuit en banc held, 11-5, that the state court reasonably applied the Brady v. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 9:30 pm by Justin Daniel
Davenport notes that among the states considering developing compliance programs are not just Democratic-led states with climate polices already in place, such as New York and California, but also states that were among the 27 to sue the U.S. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 2:32 pm by russell
But, they are required by law to do so under a United States Supreme Court case, Brady v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 8:01 am
Rule 16(a)(6) is a catchall clause that requires the government to “[a]dvise the defendant’s attorney of evidence favorable to the defendant and material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment to which defendant is entitled pursuant to Brady and United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 6:50 am by Aurora Barnes
Alabama 16-7835 Issue: Whether a state court can enforce a rule that Brady v. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 9:34 am by ERIC J DIRGA PA
Santa Clara County, California, 22 Fla. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 3:29 am by Russ Bensing
Among the 707 cases, only six prosecutors — 0.8% — were disciplined by the State Bar of California. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 2:56 pm by John Elwood
Lynaugh]”; (2) whether the state’s post-trial disclosure of evidence relating to ammunition used in the crime resulted in a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments under Brady v. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 8:47 am by Aurora Barnes
Alabama 16-7835 Issue: Whether a state court can enforce a rule that Brady v. [read post]
26 Aug 2006, 7:31 am
As far as this past week, there appears to be numerous losses from the larger including multiple losses from the California Supreme Court.The Third Circuit earlier in the week in Jones v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 8:17 am by admin
Heller — have essentially disregarded the precedent of 71 years embedded in the United States v. [read post]