Search for: "People v Rivera" Results 1 - 20 of 254
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Dec 2011, 1:38 pm by Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
How they could prosecute Rivera when the DNA evidence excluded him is highly questionable and probably violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. [read post]
11 Nov 2016, 9:53 am by New York Criminal Defense
Early last week the Court of Appeals reversed a decision of the First Department which held that the rule of law announced in People v Catu applies retroactively to pre-Catu convictions (People v Smith, 132 AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2015]) -- a decision I had labeled a "huge success for the criminal defense bar" in an October blog post.In People v Catu, the New York Court of Appeals held that the court must advise a defendant of… [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 11:27 am
  The victim met the defendant through a Craigslist advertisement for sex, and defendant said in his ads that he'd meet people at their hotel room and provide a "session" for them for $140 (which is how the police picked him up). [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 11:45 am
Justice Rivera is exactly right on that point.I also want to add one other thing. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 11:54 am
Here, Rivera-Alonzo's jury could have found him of X (a greater offense; here, assault with a deadly weapon) or Y (a slightly lesser offense; here, assault with physical contact), but Rivera-Alonzo wanted them to be instructed on Z, an even lesser lesser-included offense than Y. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 11:57 am
I agree with the California Supreme Court on this one. [read post]
7 Apr 2007, 9:15 am
It's come to this...intelligent debate on immigration policy between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly? [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 11:08 am
Chief Judge Kozinski is very good at writing opinions that make other people look bad. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 11:09 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
In this case, it reverses summary judgment in a racial harassment claim that it deems a close call because some of the harassment was not explicitly racial.The case is Rivera v. [read post]