Search for: "United States v. Miranda-Diaz"
Results 1 - 20
of 21
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2009, 4:05 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am
United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960); see State v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 7:31 am
Hopes that the Court might reconsider its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 3:08 am
The followup to last term’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:51 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 6:39 pm
In Popple v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 6:47 am
United States, 16-9660, Diaz-Esparza v. [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]
19 Jan 2021, 2:32 pm
Miranda protections do not apply to supervised release proceedings U.S. v. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
Miranda v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 10:16 am
No Miranda warnings were given to either the defendant or the driver before the crack cocaine was seized. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 6:07 pm
Diaz-Esparza v. [read post]
9 May 2018, 4:35 pm
Diaz-Esparza v. [read post]
9 May 2018, 9:40 am
United States, 17-5684, Gates v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 12:13 pm
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 26, 2008 Diaz v. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 11:52 am
" Consequently, a state drug offense punishable by more than one year qualifies as a "felony drug offense," even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. [read post]
21 May 2024, 8:17 am
§ 1326 makes it a crime to re-enter the United States after having been removed, deported, or denied entry. [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]
29 Jun 2009, 7:04 pm
FEC and Austin v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]
