Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.
Rule 36(a)(1) [1] limits the types of requests to be limited to (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents. However, the rule places no limits on the number of requests which may be made of either litigant. State court rules, however, may be stricter than this.
The Senate rules also contain a specific procedure for closing a hearing. By motion of any senator, if seconded, a committee may close a session temporarily to discuss whether there is a need to close a hearing for any of the reasons stated above. If so, the committee can close the hearing by majority roll call vote in open session.
The bar against compulsory disclosure prior to the testimony of the witness whose statement is sought cannot be circumvented by resort to the Freedom of Information Act, [36] or Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [37] It is left to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether Jencks material can be delivered before trial.
The rules direct what information must be included in a brief, describe the size of paper and type of print, and limit the number of pages. Even the colors of the covers of the briefs are specified: the petitioner's brief must have a blue cover and the respondent's must have a red cover.
California’s Proposition 35 is a battle over how state lawmakers can spend billions in health care dollars.
Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case that provided for a hearing, before a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a parole board, to determine the factual basis for parole violations. This hearing is colloquially known as a "Morrissey hearing." The hearing can take place with the defendant in or out of custody.
In his dissent, Justice Stevens explained the Cannon decision as follows: In providing a shorthand description of her claim in the text of the opinion, we ambiguously stated that she had alleged that she was denied admission "because she is a woman," but we appended a lengthy footnote setting forth the details of her disparate impact claim.