Search for: "Marcum v. United States"
Results 1 - 20
of 29
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Aug 2007, 3:15 pm
Texas and United States v. [read post]
21 May 2008, 4:46 pm
The Ninth Circuit reasoned:In United States v. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 7:21 am
United Servs. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 2:30 pm
NMCCA dismisses a conviction for consensual homosexual sodomy in United States v. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 2:39 pm
The United States does not believe that Marcum factors apply or should be given as part of the instructions to panel members in cases where a violation of Article 133, UCMJ, is charged. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 2:41 pm
NMCCA dismisses a conviction for consensual homosexual sodomy in United States v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 3:55 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 5:45 am
Thus, the declarations were not subject to the general rule of grand jury secrecy because they were not “evidence actually presented to [the grand jury]” nor “anything that may tend to reveal what transpired before it” (see United States v Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 923 F2d 241, 244 [2d Cir 1991], citing Fed Rules Crim Pro rule 6 [e] [2]). [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 3:13 pm
In United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 7:00 pm
Here’s a link to CAAF’s decision in United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 11:40 am
In 2003, the Supreme Court declared state laws against consensual sodomy by same-sex couples to be unconstitutional, in Lawrence v. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 12:30 pm
Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and United States v. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 1:16 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Apr 2007, 11:21 am
In Adkins v. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 7:20 pm
Yesterday we noted the interesting granted issue in United States v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:25 am
Thus, the declarations were not subject to the general rule of grand jury secrecy because they were not “evidence actually presented to [the grand jury]” nor “anything that may tend to reveal what transpired before it” (see United States v Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 923 F2d 241, 244 [2d Cir 1991], citing Fed Rules Crim Pro rule 6[e][2]). [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 3:06 pm
United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 7:31 am
State v. [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 11:37 am
The issue that will be argued in United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 2:13 pm
United States v. [read post]
