Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and written by Justice Antonin Scalia that established the test used to determine whether a hearsay statement is "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes.
Florida passed a bill to adopt the Daubert standard as the law governing expert witness testimony, which took effect on July 1, 2013. [8] On May 23, 2019, the Florida Supreme Court accepted the Daubert standard. [9] [10] On August 28, 2020, The Maryland Court of Appeals adopted the Daubert standard. [11]
Lawyers for Depp had argued that he had not received a fair hearing, that Heard was an unreliable witness and that recently discovered evidence contradicts Heard's assertion about her donation of the divorce settlement sum, arguing that the Judge in deciding the case, gave great weight to Heard's testimony that she donated all her $7 million ...
The court has not given a reason but it likely relates to his previous role as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Oklahoma. If the court is divided 4-4, as ...
The Superior Court in September 2020, upheld Bonnett's conviction and three consecutive life sentence on appeal when Bonnett challenged the testimony of a state police deputy fire marshal.
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]
The broader idea embedded in the opinion was the idea that willful misconduct of an attorney lowers the truthfulness of proffered testimony. [23] In the instant case, the Court held that a trial judge could hold the "presumption" that a new witnesses' testimony is perjured due to "a pattern of discovery violations". [24]
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]