Search for: "Spinelli v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 33
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 2:49 pm by Elizabeth Kruska
Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964); Spinelli v. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 6:17 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
Fall is back, and, in the United States, that means pumpkin-flavored products and (American) football galore. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 1:01 pm by Adam Feldman
Varsity Brands to patent review in Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 6:19 pm by Brian Shiffrin
  CPL 240.20(1)(h) requires the prosecutor disclose "Anything required to be disclosed, prior to trial, to the defendant by the prosecutor, pursuant to the constitution of this state or of the United States. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 4:20 am by Ben
Preska, Chief United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, rule [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 4:41 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Given the nature of the Brady violation with respect to the known but undisclosed prior bad act, i.e., the courier information, in the context of this trial the undisclosed information is not material, not only because the information was vague, but also because it is so similar to the disclosures already provided: the information withheld is merely cumulative of equally impeaching evidence introduced at trial as held in United States v Spinelli. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 11:09 pm
  Isn't there a "whole cadre of U.S. trustees that presumably can look out for the interests of the poor United States. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 9:22 am by Aaron Pelley United States v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:06 pm by Daniel Thies - Guest
For all the complexity of the statute at issue in United States v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 6:43 pm by Rumpole
Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984) (citing Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 419); see United States v. [read post]
24 May 2009, 7:48 pm
The defendant's privacy interests in the Blazer is as the United States Supreme Court recognized in Arizona v. [read post]