Search for: "The People v. Cross" Results 101 - 120 of 5,683
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jan 2009, 1:28 pm
Although the People demonstrated due diligence in attempting to locate the victim for trial (see People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 571, cert denied 456 US 979), the court unduly restricted defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim at the preliminary hearing, and thus the admission in evidence of the preliminary hearing testimony deprived defendant of his right of confrontation (see People v Simmons, 36 NY2d 126, 130-131). [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:17 am by Venkat Balasubramani
(Forbes Cross-Post) California’s New Law Shows It’s Not Easy To Regulate Revenge Porn (Forbes Cross-Post) Court Denies Restraining Order Against Ex-Boyfriend Who Threatened to Post Revenge Porn — EC v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 1:01 pm
 It's just a crazy -- and presumably -- unexpected twist in the law that results from a statutory patchwork of cross-references to which the Legislature presumably paid no (or almost no) attention.So Tirey -- who's been convicted of lewd conduct with two girls under 14 -- challenges the statute as a denial of equal protection. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm by Elie Mystal
I’m just saying that if a religious symbol can be “secularized” at all, isn’t the cross pretty much already there when it comes to memorializing dead people? [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 9:01 am by rdasgupta
Sure Superman can see through walls and fly faster than a speeding bullet, but how would he hold up on cross examination? [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 9:00 am by Lovechilde
As we approach the 38th anniversary of Roe v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 4:00 am
During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Gretna police prevented hundreds of people from crossing the Crescent City Connection. [read post]
7 Apr 2006, 1:46 pm
Another, to some extent the other side of the same coin, is whether the earlier opportunity should be deemed inadequate because some information that might have been used in cross and that is available at trial was not available at the time of the earlier proceeding.In People v. [read post]