Ad
related to: rule 36 massachusetts criminal procedure law
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. [2]
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 210.40 grants the defendant (or the prosecutor or the court) the power to apply for relief: . First, it directs the court to find, under the general concept of the "furtherance of justice" stated in its provisions, that the "dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly ...
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 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide in rule 7(f) that "the court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars".. In U.S. state law, the bill of particulars was abolished in nearly all court systems in the 1940s and 1950s due to the widespread recognition that much of the information requested could be obtained more efficiently through the discovery process.
The United States Constitution, including the United States Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, contains the following provisions regarding criminal procedure. Due to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, all of these provisions apply equally to criminal proceedings in state courts, with the exception of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth ...
The exclusionary rule as it has developed in the United States has been long criticized. Judge Benjamin Cardozo, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals between 1927 and 1932, stated that under the rule, "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." Cardozo noted that many states had rejected the rule, but suggested ...
After the 2003 decision, 36 states and Washington, D.C., followed Massachusetts in legalizing same-sex marriage. In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled remaining state bans on same-sex marriage ...
The rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to its statutory authority under the Rules Enabling Act. [1] The Supreme Court must transmit a copy of its rules to the United States Congress no later than May 1 of the year in which they are to go into effect, and the new rule can then become effective no earlier than December 1 of that year.