Search for: "United States v. Cronic" Results 21 - 37 of 37
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Mar 2015, 2:56 pm by John Elwood
Louisiana, 14-280 (third relist since the Court received the state’s brief in opposition); Tolliver v. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 3:30 am by Coleman Saunders
The defense made several additional arguments for the abatement, relying upon the factors in United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 9:19 am by Maureen Johnston
United States, or (b) “preventing further [government] disclosure,” United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 7:48 am by John Elwood
Citing its recent opinions in United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 6:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Donald 14-618Issue: (1) Whether the Michigan courts' decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 12:50 pm by Kate Howard
Cronic prejudice standard applies (as every other state and federal court to consider the question has held), or whether the Strickland v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 8:05 am by Maureen Johnston
Donald 14-618Issue: (1) Whether the Michigan courts' decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 11:20 am by John Elwood
United States, 16-142. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 8:00 am by John Elwood
Not That Kind Of Cronic. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 10:47 am by John Elwood
United States (seven). [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 8:44 am by Maureen Johnston
Donald 14-618Issue: (1) Whether the Michigan courts' decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 9:55 am by John Elwood
  The state asks (1) whether the Michigan courts’ decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 8:19 am by John Elwood
United States silly-case-name award. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
Rodriguez-Amaya, No. 06-4514 Conviction for unlawful reentry after deportation by an aggravated felon is affirmed where the time defendant was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on administrative charges pending his removal was not detention "in connection with" his arrest, thus defendant's indictment did not violate the Speedy Trial Act. [read post]