Search for: "People v. Sandoval"
Results 1 - 20
of 94
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2010, 2:07 pm
A Sandoval hearing is designed to let the accused make an informed choice whether he should take the stand prior to testifying by providing a pre-trial determination of the permissible scope of cross-examination of the accused (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). [read post]
30 Oct 2006, 11:55 am
In People v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 2:33 pm
People v. [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 7:50 am
The Law & Indigenous Peoples Program at University of New Mexico School of Law hosts U.S. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 9:00 pm
In People v Hawkins (2008 NY Slip Op 09254 [11/25/08]) the Court of Appeals provided counsel with further guidance as to what is required to preserve errors for review as a matter of law. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 12:32 pm
People v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:34 pm
People v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:34 pm
People v. [read post]
25 May 2008, 3:53 am
People v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 12:40 pm
People v. [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 6:47 pm
In People v Towsley, 2008 NY Slip Op 06054 [4th Dept 7/3/08] [here], the Fourth Department held that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to issue a Sandoval ruling permitting the defendant to be cross examined regarding a prior Youthful Offender adjudication. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 12:23 pm
People v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 3:01 pm
People v. [read post]
19 Jul 2007, 10:08 am
The rulings come in People v. [read post]
15 Jul 2012, 5:18 am
People v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 4:03 pm
Last week the United States District Court Northern District of Texas granted Target summary judgment in Sandoval v. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 7:57 am
People v. [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 2:42 pm
The impact of climate change on the cultural identity of Indigenous Peoples and the nation’s first “climate refugees”. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 6:21 am
A shudder went through the state, and the state supreme court in People v. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 12:41 pm
We should respond that these questions address the ability of a potential juror to be fair and impartial, an area of inquiry in which a trial court is more apt to commit error (see CPL § 270.20[1][b]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358 [2001]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600 [2000]; People v Lewis, 71 AD3d 1582 [4th Dept 2010]; People v Habte, 35 AD3d 1199 [4th Dept 2006]). [read post]
