Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An attorney may also raise an objection against a judge's ruling, to preserve the right to appeal that ruling. Under certain circumstances, a court may need to hold some kind of pretrial hearing and make evidentiary rulings to resolve important issues like personal jurisdiction, or whether to impose sanctions for extreme misconduct by parties or counsel.
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.
A judge overruled The Star’s objections in a court order Thursday, and remanded the case back to the arbitrator to resolve the dispute. ... Rhodes said the ruling is a local example of the ...
Judge Chutkan ordered Trump's lawyers to file their objections to the proposed redactions on Tuesday. A response from the prosecutors is due on Oct 10, meaning the material could possibly become ...
During the trial the judge denied Faretta's motions to be co-counsel and other motions he attempted to make on his behalf. Subsequently, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to time in prison. The California Court of Appeal, which relied on a recent California Supreme Court decision that had expressly decided the issue, ruled that Faretta ...
The judge's ruling is the latest overturning federal and state laws that gave special protections based on race and ethnicity. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority also cited ...
The Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party are appealing a ruling from Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox, who ruled Wednesday that the State Election Board did not have the authority to pass the rules and ordered it to immediately inform all state and local election officials that the rules are void and not ...
Melendez-Diaz objected to their admission asserting that the Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington required the forensic analyst to testify in person. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the affidavits as prima facie evidence of the positive presence of narcotics. A jury trial found Melendez-Diaz guilty.