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.
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (2011) Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) Williams v. Illinois, No. 10–8505 (June 18, 2012) Face-to-face confrontation
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 ...
King is the son of Bruce King, a three-time Governor of New Mexico, [1] and Alice M. King (née Martin), the former First Lady of New Mexico. [2] He attended New Mexico State University and obtained a bachelor's degree in chemistry in 1976. He received his Ph.D. in organic chemistry from University of Colorado, Boulder in 1980. He then attended ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Telefon (film) The People Next Door (1996 film) Thelma & Louise; Them! There Will Be Blood; Thor (film) Tiger Eyes (film) Timerider: The Adventure of Lyle Swann; Tortilla Heaven; Treasure of the Silver Lake; Truck Stop Women; Truth or Consequences, N.M. (film) The Turbo Charged Prelude for 2 Fast 2 Furious; Twins (1988 film) Two Men in Town ...
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.
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 ]