Search for: "People v. Garrett" Results 41 - 60 of 222
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Mar 2017, 6:55 am by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
Resolving Juror Confusion New York’s Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department rendered an opinion in People v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 5:06 am
But, if you're jonesing for those long write-ups again, thanks to the good people at James Publishing, you can now read them in one handy-dandy book. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 7:10 am by Amy Howe
In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps weighs in on Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 7:56 am by Kalvis Golde
Briefly: At the Stanford Law Review, Thomas Ward Frampton urges a second look at Justice Clarence Thomas’ controversial dissent in Flowers v. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 6:00 am by Brian Gallini
Moreover, applying the Supreme Court’s 1995 opinion in Wyoming v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
On Wednesday the justices heard oral argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 5:16 am by Mark A. Graber
Garrett Davis of Kentucky referred to “the portion of the people who choose the officers of the government. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 7:56 am by Amy Howe
” And in his column for The Atlantic, Garrett Epps eulogizes Al Smith, the respondent in Employment Division v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 5:11 am by Savanna Nolan
 As reported on SCOTUSblog, this week may finally be the week the Justices grant an order on Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 9:45 am
In the book "Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong," University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett researched the cases of 250 people who were wrongfully convicted before DNA evidence proved their innocence. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 6:11 am by Marissa Miller
This blog’s Shelby County v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 1:49 pm by nflatow
Garrett, the author of a recent book on the first 250 people exonerated by DNA evidence, details all of the ways in which the eyewitness testimony in this case was unreliable. [read post]