Search for: "US v. Diaz"
Results 1 - 20
of 858
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2009, 9:15 am
More on Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 4:54 pm
In Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 7:33 am
Although some have argued that Dookhan’s dry-labbing demonstrates the necessity of the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 4:18 pm
(quoting State v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 3:31 am
But on Monday, the US Supreme Court granted review in Briscoe v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 7:06 am
Last year in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 6:32 pm
Anyone who hated Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 3:52 pm
A substantially similar issue was decided this summer by the SCOTUS in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
17 Mar 2021, 7:24 am
On its face, Diaz (Diaz v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 7:56 pm
It’s an outstanding piece of scholarship that will be useful to those of us litigating Melendez-Diaz issues. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 4:48 pm
In United States v. [read post]
9 Nov 2008, 2:01 pm
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Argument Preview: Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 10:34 am
Unfortunately for Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had already squarely addressed this issue in Commonwealth v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 1:15 am
Palmer v. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 2:00 am
US v. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 6:49 pm
But I attended the argument of Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 8:01 pm
Recently I wrote about how the Supreme Court decisions in Melendez-Diaz(129 S.Ct. 2527 [June 25, 2009]) and Briscoe v Virginia (559 US ___ [1/25/10]) appeared to undermine and contracidt hte holdings of the New York Court of Appeals in People v Rawlins and People v Meekins (10 N.Y.3d 136 [2/19/2008]). [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 5:50 pm
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rasul v. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 4:58 am
Brown on sexual assault charges over claims that the admission of of a DNA report processed by a subcontractor laboratory to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) through the testimony of a forensic biologist from OCME violated the right of confrontation as discussed in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts. [read post]
