Search for: "People v. Davis (1995)" Results 1 - 20 of 123
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2009, 12:35 pm
Davis that he was "quite intoxicated" and "out of control" when this happened. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 1:35 pm by Steve Hall
In the first, in 1995, the justices admonished District Attorney Harry F. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 9:48 pm by Marta Requejo
AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS, AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS V GREAT SOCIALIST PEOPLE’S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA, ORDER FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES 25 MARCH 2011, by Eleni Polymenopoulou  II. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 6:38 pm by Donald Thompson
 For example, when notice of opportunity to testify before the grand jury is provided to defense counsel, failure to timely make defendant aware of such notice or otherwise protect defendant’s right to testify (by failing to provide the People with written notice of the defendant’s desire to testify, for example) is ineffective (see, People v Jiminez, supra; People v Prest, 105 AD2d 1078 [4th Dept 1984]; see also, People… [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 2:45 am
Davis will get his hearing. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 9:36 am by Arnold Wadsworth Coggins
We affirm the denial of Malloy‘s motion to suppress under the authority of Davis v. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 4:00 am by Shea Denning
Mercado, 307 F.3d 1226, 1229 (10th Cir. 2002) (determining that the automobile exception applied to warrantless search of van that was temporarily inoperable due to mechanical problems) and People v. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 9:48 am by centerforartlaw
The Italian legal proceedings Between 1966 and 1970, a first set of criminal proceedings took place in Italy, as the people suspected of having received and handled Victorious Youth faced accusations of fencing cultural property that belonged to the State.[11] The defendants were acquitted, due to a lack of evidence that Victorious Youth even existed (let alone that it was found in Italian waters). [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am by INFORRM
The Court of Appeal (Dame Victoria Sharp P, Sir Geoffrey Vos C and Davis LJ) unanimously allowed Mr Lloyd’s appeal (with the Chancellor giving the only substantive judgment), granting him permission to serve out. [read post]