Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237 (2015), is United States Supreme Court case opinion that narrowed the standard set in Crawford v. Washington for determining whether hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment .
Note that under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §§769, 770, and 1235, prior inconsistent statements may be used for both impeachment and as substantive evidence, even if they were not originally made under oath at a formal proceeding, as long as "the witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny ...
A "motion to dismiss" asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy.As an example, a claim that the defendant failed to greet the plaintiff while passing the latter on the street, insofar as no legal duty to do so may exist, would be dismissed for failure to state a valid claim: the court must assume the truth of the factual ...
ZANESVILLE − The Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office is awaiting a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court regarding evidence in a local custody case.. The local prosecutor's office argued on ...
Jencks material is evidence that is used in the course of a federal criminal prosecution in the United States. It usually consists of documents relied upon by government witnesses who testify at trial. The material is described as inculpatory, favoring the United States government's prosecution of a criminal defendant.
An order to show cause is a type of court order that requires one or more of the parties to a case to justify, explain, or prove something to the court.Courts commonly use orders to show cause when the judge needs more information before deciding whether or not to issue an order requested by one of the parties. [1]
A judge on Tuesday ordered Southern California Edison to preserve data, equipment and evidence related to the deadly Eaton fire, a decision praised by attorneys who sued the giant utility company ...
California did not violate the Due Process Clause when entering a binding judgment on a Texas corporation with "substantial connection[s]" to California Lambert v. California: 355 U.S. 225 (1957) mens rea and ignorance of the law: One, Inc. v. Olesen: 355 U.S. 371 (1958) pro-homosexual writings and the Comstock laws: Perez v. Brownell: 356 U.S ...