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.
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
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 ...
The 2010 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 4, 2010, and concluded October 1, 2011. This was the eighteenth term of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's tenure on the Court.
The New Mexico Supreme Court dismissed Griffin's appeal in November 2022 on procedural grounds and in February 2023 denied his request for reconsideration, prompting Griffin's appeal to the U.S ...
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]
The elk populations in New Mexico are all species reintroduced between 1912 and the 1950s, Ryan Darr, a spokesperson for the state Department of Game and Fish, said in an email to the Journal.
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 ...