Search for: "State v. Cross"
Results 1861 - 1880
of 14,908
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2012, 4:41 pm
Gioglio the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that Gioglio failed to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel under the test stated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v Washington. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 1:29 am
10thCir-Denver.jpg Victim statement made about an hour after a brutal assault during his transport to the hospital was admissible as excited utterances; there was no Confrontation Clause violation since there "a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine" the victim about the statement, even though the victim "did not testify as to the content of his post-assault statements", in United States v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 1:02 am
Ninth_Cir_Pasadena.jpeg In involuntary manslaughter trial, the Confrontation Clause did not bar the investigating officer's testimony as it was based "almost entirely upon his own observations and statements made to him at that time by" the defendant and the witness was cross-examined at trial "about what he had observed and what Crowe had told him," in United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 9:53 am
United States, there are only four cases undecided from the October sitting: United States v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:27 am
The post Case Preview: McDonald (Deceased) v National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 7:53 am
State v. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 1:38 pm
On April 6, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals published a per curiam opinion in Matthews v. [read post]
19 Oct 2019, 5:48 am
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas and Garrison & Associates. [read post]
13 May 2010, 4:56 pm
Today, CAAF affirmed in United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 6:59 am
John v. [read post]
14 Dec 2023, 12:00 am
Browne v Dunn Rears Its Head Against this, the defendant’s case suffered from a tendency to attempt to produce inadmissible hearsay, and contravention of the ancient tripwire Browne v Dunn, a case from 1893 that requires litigants to put statements of fact to opposing witnesses in cross-examination if the litigant later intends to claim that the statement of fact contradicts the testimony of the opposing witness. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 12:49 pm
For example in Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 12:49 pm
For example in Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2006, 10:28 am
In Lummis v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 4:26 am
The case is entitled Waxler v. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 6:09 am
Here is the opinion in Dept. of Ecology v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 1:42 pm
Red Cross v. [read post]
5 Sep 2024, 4:32 am
Though Armenia v. [read post]
