Ad
related to: examples of norm breaching evidence in california legal documents walnut creek- Checklist & Guides
Ensure You Covers All the Issues &
Track the Steps on a Legal Matter.
- Practice Notes
Up-to-Date, Easy to Understand
Explanations on Legal Subjects.
- How-To Legal Content
Answers "How Do I" Questions When
Working on Unfamiliar Matters.
- Compare Plans & Pricing
Find the Right Practical Law Plan
To Fit Your Organization's Needs.
- Checklist & Guides
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures.
Greene, "Thus the term 'Brady violation' is sometimes used to refer to any breach of the broad obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence – that is, to any suppression of so-called 'Brady material' – although strictly speaking, there is never a real 'Brady violation' unless the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable ...
Note that under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §§769, 770, and 1235, prior inconsistent statements may be used for both impeachment and as substantive evidence, even if they were not originally made under oath at a formal proceeding, as long as "the witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny ...
Victims of the Los Angeles wildfires, likely the costliest in U.S. history, are seizing upon a unique California legal doctrine that allows them to collect from their power utility if its ...
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. [1]
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
California prosecutors will no longer be able to use musical artists' lyrics in criminal trials against them unless they meet specific parameters. It's a change with huge implications for racial ...
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.