Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), is a significant 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court.On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extend to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine.
New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), the Court ruled that admitting a lab chemist's analysis into evidence, without having him testify, violated the Confrontation Clause. [ 15 ] [ 16 ] In Michigan v. Bryant , 562 U.S. 344 (2011), the Court ruled that the "primary purpose" of a shooting victim's statement as to who shot him, and the police's reason ...
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting: 09-115: 2011-05-26 An Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants is not preempted by federal immigration law. J.D.B. v. North Carolina: 09-11121: 2011-06-16 Age is relevant in Miranda cases. Bullcoming v. New Mexico: 09-10876 [dead link ] 2011-06-23
Case name Citation Date decided Sykes v. United States: 564 U.S. 1: June 9, 2011 Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. 564 U.S. 50: June 9, 2011 DePierre v. United States
On March 2, 2011, King on behalf of the Respondent, New Mexico, argued before the United States Supreme Court in Bullcoming v. New Mexico. On July 10, 2012, King officially announced that he was seeking the Democratic nomination for Governor of New Mexico. [citation needed]
After the Supreme Court sided with the federal government in the Texas v. New Mexico water case, the parties are going back to the drawing board. ... it must travel roughly 100 river miles to the ...
Constitutional law of the United States; Overview; Articles; Amendments; History; Judicial review; Principles; Separation of powers; Individual rights; Rule of law
A December 2011 article in the Huffington Post noted that Kennedy in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) and Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011) dissented on an interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, where a lab tech who created a forensic report on a case is required to testify at trial if called. His dissents, joined ...