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 ...
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
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
Constitutional law of the United States; Overview; Articles; Amendments; History; Judicial review; Principles; Separation of powers; Individual rights; Rule of law
The parents of a 10-year-old boy who hanged himself in May after “horrific bullying” are suing their son’s school, claiming staff covered up complaints and punished victims who spoke up ...
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 ...
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 ...