Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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, 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.
According to FRCP Rule 30, the number of depositions is limited to ten depositions per side (i.e. plaintiffs and defendants), with deposition of each deponent limited to a single day of no more than seven hours (unless specified otherwise in local rules of the district). [12] Expert witness deposition in a mock trial simulation. The court ...
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.
For example, California technically did not abolish exceptions, but merely rendered them superfluous by simply treating just about every ruling of the trial court as automatically excepted to. [5] Thus, in nearly all U.S. courts, it is now sufficient that the objection was clearly made on the record.
The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the California District Court of Appeal. In an opinion by Justice Douglas, expressing the view of six members of the Court, it was held that the denial of counsel under the California rule of procedure stated above violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
John Moore, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The Regents of the University of California et al., Defendants and Respondents: Citation(s) 51 Cal. 3d 120; 271 Cal. Rptr. 146; 793 P.2d 479: Case history; Prior history: Review granted, California Court of Appeal decision depublished: Subsequent history: Remanded back to Court of Appeal for further ...
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. Notably, under Rule 36(a)(3), [1] requests for admission are automatically deemed admitted in U.S. federal courts if the opponent fails to timely respond or object. The opponent bears the ...