Search for: "People v. Robertson (1992)"
Results 1 - 20
of 39
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Sep 2013, 11:28 am
Such misconduct may impair a defendant's due process rights and require a reversal of the conviction (see, e.g., People v Robertson, 12 NY2d 355; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554; People v Creasy, 236 NY 205; Napue v Illinois, 360 US 264; Alcorta v Texas, 355 US 28). [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 5:58 am
United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), the U.S. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 6:30 pm
" Jimmy Robertson, a Jackson attorney who served on the state Supreme Court from 1983 to 1992, said Diaz laid out a number of points, including that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder, that were "pretty close to being irrefutable to anybody that's objective on the question. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 4:00 am
V. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 4:04 pm
See Appellant’s Br., Norman v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 7:32 am
& Rawle 394 (Pa. 1824); People v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 9:27 am
App. 1992); Williams v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 8:20 pm
Illinois (1886), Robertson v. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
What these people had demonstrated during this period of time was that they did not recognize the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China over HKSAR, and they did not support the policy of the “One Country, Two systems”. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 12:03 pm
Just what Bradley worries people might find. [read post]
Federal Judge Suggests Abortion May Be Protected Under 13th Amendment’s Ban on Involuntary Servitude
7 Feb 2023, 4:56 am
In Robertson v. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 5:31 pm
I disagree with Robert Chesney and Benjamin Wittes’ comments on the Salahi v. [read post]
22 Sep 2019, 6:01 pm
See, also, Robertson v. [read post]
16 Oct 2022, 6:51 pm
People should not drink recalled tea. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 10:48 pm
B., Robertson, B. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 4:26 pm
United States (for a CT discussion see State v. [read post]
