Search for: "STATE v. MELENDEZ"
Results 121 - 140
of 466
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2012, 1:10 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 10:41 am
That's all a court needs to decide that the state court decision (preceding both Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming) was not contrary to clearly established federal law. [read post]
8 May 2012, 9:55 pm
(2) How does the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 8:01 am
Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; John V. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 3:47 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 4:37 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 6:00 am
She objected for lack of foundation, hearsay, and violation of the right of confrontation stated in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 11:56 am
Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and Melendez-Diaz. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 5:12 am
Melendez v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 7:47 am
When this happen, the United States Supreme Court had to step in, and thus we have the case of Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 8:55 am
See United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 9:21 pm
Washington, (prosecution may not introduce testimonial hearsay against the defendant), Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 2:38 am
Drug offenses in Massachusetts were made more difficult to prove by the United States Supreme Courts' decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 2:12 pm
Washington, Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 8:21 am
In recent years, the application of the right to confrontation in the context of laboratory or DNA test evidence has been the subject of much litigation at the United States Supreme Court In Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts (129 S.Ct. 2527 [2009]), the Supreme Court held that it violate the right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of a person who performed the test subject to confrontation. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 12:41 pm
In Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
Negative judicial reactions to the First Amendment may be imperfectly akin to negative judicial reactions to Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 3:04 pm
State, 2011 WL 4483937 (Md. [read post]
