v. COURT USE ONLY XXXXX XXXXX, Defendant. Attorney for the Defendant:
|
|
- Paul Booth
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 County Court, Jefferson County, State of Colorado Jefferson Combined Court 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Plaintiff, v. COURT USE ONLY XXXXX XXXXX, Defendant. Attorney for the Defendant: Case Number: 11M6626 The Orr Law Firm L.L.C. Rhidian D.W. Orr, Atty. Reg. No Nathan Johnson, Atty. Reg. No Shawn Gillum, Atty. Reg. No Richard Hernandez, Atty. Reg. No South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 1110-N Denver, Colorado (Main) (Fax) Division B Courtroom: BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS THE CHARGES Defendant, XXXXX XXXXX, submits this Brief in Support of the Motion to Compel Discovery or, In the Alternative, to Dismiss the Charges. BACKGROUND AND FACTS 1. On December 20, 2011, Trooper Sparks with the Colorado State Patrol contacted Defendant. Trooper Sparks invoked Colorado s Express Consent Law, which requires a driver to submit to a breath or blood test if an officer has probable cause to believe the driver is under the influence of alcohol. C.R.S Defendant chose a blood test, according to police reports. The trooper facilitated a blood draw and submitted the sample to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ( CDPHE ) Laboratory Services Division for testing. 2. Mitchell Fox-Rivera, a Blood Analyst in the CDPHE lab. He tested at least 1,700 blood samples for the presence of alcohol. Cynthia Burbach is the Toxicology Laboratory Analyst 1
2 Supervisor for the CDPHE. As a Supervising Analyst, Ms. Burbach s duty is to oversee testing analysts, including Mr. Fox-Rivera and others like him, and apply standard operating procedures. See the Rules Pertaining to Testing for Alcohol and Other Drugs, 5 CCR , 1.5 (definitions); Appendix 2C (Laboratory Certification Onsite Evaluation Standards). These regulations refer at several places to distinctions between a Testing Analyst (Mr. Fox-Rivera and others like him) and a Supervising Analyst (Ms. Burbach). Id. 3. On March 21, 2012, Ms. Burbach, Mr. Fox-Rivera s supervisor, sent an to Chris Helsor with the Colorado District Attorneys Council, attached as Exhibit A. Ms. Burbach notified Mr. Halsor that Mr. Fox-Rivera was terminated on March 14, 2012 for unsatisfactory performance. Specifically, several blood samples analyzed by Mr. Fox-Rivera were reported outside the appropriate range. This was confirmed through independent testing by another analyst in the Forensic Toxicology Laboratory. Ms. Burback said the CDPHE lab was in the process of re-analyzing 1,700 samples that Mr. Fox-Rivera analyzed According to an article in the Denver Post, attached as Exhibit B, Mr. Fox-Rivera said the erroneous BAC reports are the result of Ms. Burbach s failure to review and approve blood samples: Id. Because the procedures require that I perform the initial review, and the toxicology supervisor review all the data, it was anticipated that mistakes would occur and be corrected.it was not my role to review the data for forensic and litigation needs. 5. In a March 21 , attached as Exhibit A, Ms. Burbach agreed that Mr. Fox-Rivera was responsible only for what she termed the initial analysis of BAC evidence. That Mr. Fox- Rivera was responsible only for initial analysis is consistent with the Rules Pertaining to Testing for Alcohol and Other Drugs, which require the Supervising Analyst, Ms. Burbach, to oversee testing analyst, Mr. Fox-Rivera, and other, similar analysts. See 2, supra. 6. Despite Ms. Burbach s role as Supervising Analyst who signed off on nearly all of Mr. Fox-Rivera s chemical BAC reports, she has attempted to shift and spread blame away from herself. For example, Ms. Burbach issued an affidavit, attached as Exhibit C, placing responsibility for laboratory error solely upon him. 7. Other than dismissing Mr. Fox-Rivera, the only corrective measure Ms. Burbach specified has been to re-test the blood samples initially tested by Mr. Fox-Rivera. But this is only the beginning of the analysis and investigation, not the end. 1 It is worth mentioning that the People did not disclose Mr. Burbach s to the defense. In fact, the People have not produced any of the materials mentioned in this Brief. Defendant obtained the Exhibits through Colorado Open Records requests and learned about the extent of the problem through news reports. 2
3 8. Ms. Burbach swears in her affidavit, As of this date, April 20th, 2012 No retest has resulted in a lower actual BAC than was reported. Id. This is simply not true. 9. On November 9, 2011, Mr. Fox-Rivera analyzed a blood sample and reported a.146 BAC, which is attached as Exhibit D. Ms. Burbach s signature attests that she reviewed and approved this blood sample. On April 18, 2012, two days before Ms. Burbach executed her affidavit, she reviewed and approved an amended report, attached as Exhibit E. The amended report, which includes Mr. Burbach s signature, shows the new analyst reported a.134 BAC. Id. This was obviously lower than the originally-reported test result. In addition, undersigned counsel is aware of at least four additional instances where Ms. Burbach singed an amended blood report before she executed her affidavit, all of which provided a lower BAC than the initial test. 10. Whether Ms. Burbach was being untruthful or incompetent when she signed her affidavit demonstrates an additional, real need for the defense to have the opportunity to review the materials it requests in the Motion to Compel Discovery or, In the Alternative, to Dismiss the Charges. The defense cannot be expected to rely on Ms. Burbach s assertions that the problem with the CDPHE lab has been corrected and that the amended blood tests are accurate. Furthermore, it is evident that Mr. Burbach, as the Supervising Analyst, has approved many erroneous blood reports. Defendant has a right to independently verify Ms. Burbach s findings and conclusions. 11. The Defendant has consulted with Janine Arvizu, a nationally-recognized expert in blood testing and analysis, and quality assessments of laboratories and their work product. Ms. Arvizu has been qualified as an expert witness in many states and federal courts. To analyze the blood test evidence for reliability and validity in this case, an independent analyst must have the requested information, according to Ms. Arvizu. The materials requested will help verify and clarify why and how Ms. Burbach signed off on (or rubberstamped) so many erroneous blood reports. To conduct an independent data quality assessment of a reported forensic blood alcohol result, and the understand the validity and reliability of the blood draw, a reviewer must have access to records that will enable an assessment of the efficacy of the blood draw, the laboratory s operations, and the case-specific testing. APPLICATION TO THE LAW A. The government must disclose all material records in its possession. 12. Crim. P 16, Part I (a)(2) requires the prosecution to disclose to the defense any material or information within his or her possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce the punishment therefore. 13. Materials are in the possession or control of the prosecution if the materials are in the possession or control of members of his or her staff and of any other who have participated in the 3
4 investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly report, or with reference to the particular case have reported, to his or her office. Crim. P. 16, Part I (a)(3) (emphasis added). The prosecution is required to ensure that a flow of information is maintained between the various investigative personnel and his or her office sufficient to place within his or her possession or control all material and information relevant to the accused and the offense charged. Crim. P. 16, Part I (b)(4). 14. The records requested in Defendant s Motion to Compel Discovery are, therefore, within the possession or control of the prosecution. Law enforcement agencies in this jurisdiction routinely and exclusively submit blood samples to the CDPHE Laboratory Services Division for testing. The CDPHE lab analyzes those tests and reports the results to the prosecution. As such, the CDPHE lab participated in the investigation and evaluation of this case. The CDPHE lab regularly reports to the prosecution. And the CDPHE lab reported to the prosecution about this particular case. 15. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the materials were not in the possession or control of the prosecution, the prosecuting attorney shall use diligent good faith efforts to cause such material to be made available to the defense [u]pon the defense s request of material which would be discoverable if in the possession or control of the prosecuting attorney and which is in the possession or control of other governmental personnel. Crim. P. 16, Part I (c)(1). 16. Regarding actual disclosure and its relation to due process, the controlling constitutional standard is very well settled. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held that "suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." See also In re Attorney C., 47 P.3d 1167, (Colo. 2002). 17. Generally, evidence is material and exculpatory if (1) it possesses exculpatory value that is apparent before the evidence is destroyed; and (2) it is of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. People v. Eagen, 892 P.2d 426, 428 (Colo. App. 1994). Rule 16, Part I (a)(2) mandates that the prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel any material or information within his possession or control which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce the punishment therefore. In re Attorney C, 47 P.3d at 1171 (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted). 18. Material evidence includes that which may be used for impeachment. See People v. District Court, 790 P.2d 332 (Colo. 1990) (concluding that the significance of impeachment evidence in determining the outcome of a criminal prosecution often matches that of substantive or exculpatory evidence ); People v. Doss, 782 P.2d 1198 (Colo. App. 1989) (finding that [a]ny distinction between impeachment and exculpatory evidence has been rejected, and both fall within the Brady rule since such evidence, if disclosed and used effectively, may make the 4
5 difference between a conviction or an acquittal ) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)). 19. It also bears emphasis that the prosecution s duty to disclose material evidence that is in its control is virtually absolute, without exception. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); and Exline v. Gunter, 985 F.2d 487 (10th Cir. 1993), are perfectly illustrative of this. In Ritchie and Exline, the government sought to withhold governmental records pertaining to sexual abuse of children. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 43; Exline, 985 F.2d at 488. There could scarcely be any area in which legitimate concerns about privacy are stronger. Yet both Ritchie and Exline hold that even this otherwise privileged information must be disclosed to the accused, because it is in the government s possession. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 58; Exline, 985 F.2d at 489. Therefore, these cases demonstrate that virtually no governmental privilege over "material" evidence within its possession may be exercised against the accused while the government is prosecuting the accused for alleged crime. See also People v. Walker, 666 P.2d 113 (Colo. 1983) (holding that police officer's usual privilege in personnel records must yield to the defendant's always "compelling" interest in accessing material evidence possessed by the government). 20. When the accused moves for disclosure of material evidence, the burden of the defense to establish that the Department's records are likely "material" is minimal. After all, when evidence is solely within the government's possession, it follows that a defendant cannot prove the specific content of what has been withheld. United States v. Valenzuala-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 871 (1982); Ritchie, supra. Thus, in requesting access to governmental records, the duty of the accused is no higher than to "at least make some plausible showing" that the records contain information "both material and favorable to his defense." Ritchie, 480 U.S. at n.15 (emphasis added); see also People v. Morgan, 606 P.2d 1296, 1299 (1980). B. The records are inherently exculpatory and bear upon the reliability of a chemical BAC test result, which is the linchpin of any DUI prosecution. 21. In this case, the relevance and exculpatory value of requested materials are obvious. The government seeks to prosecute Defendant on the basis of a CDPHE blood test. Ms. Burbach was the Supervising Analyst who signed off on the test in this case. 22. Blood analyses in a DUI case is a critical piece of evidence, because blood testing can establish innocence as well as guilt. People v. Gillett, 629 P.2d 613, 618 (Colo. 1981). 23. In establishing its statutory system for chemical BAC testing, the General Assembly charged the CDPHE with the responsibility for designing and maintaining a testing system that produces results that are reliable. C.R.S (6)(c), (i)(i). The Department's regulations are so prominent in the statutory scheme that the mere certification of compliance with these regulations is generally a sufficient foundation for admitting chemical BAC evidence in a criminal trial. C.R.S (6)(g). Moreover, if Department-certified testing indicates a driver's BAC is.08 or greater, the evidence shall be deemed prima facie evidence of DUI per se. C.R.S (2)(a). If testing compliant with Department regulations indicates a driver's 5
6 BAC is at a level below.05 or between.05 and.08, then mandatory and permissible inferences arise on which the jury will predicate its verdicts. C.R.S (6)(a). 24. In addition to these statutory consequences, the Department's certifications of chemical BAC testing carry simple but undoubted prestige and persuasive value in the minds of jurors. Certified testing results are persuasive because they have the imprimatur of a governmental agency. Cf. Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415 (Colo. 1987) (observing that some forms of prosecutorial misconduct are especially prejudicial, due to the prestige of the district attorney's status as a public official). 25. However, by the admission of the Ms. Burbach, Supervising Analyst, there has been systemic error affecting virtually every test conducted at her lab by Mr. Fox-Rivera. Importantly, she signed off an all of those tests, claiming she had reviewed and approved the results. 26. The systematic failure of the laboratory's Testing Analyst to comply with the Department's standard operating procedures, and the likewise systematic failure of the laboratory's Supervising Analyst to identify and correct such errors before a run of 1,700 cases, strongly impeaches the reliability of any laboratory result and of Ms. Burbach s approval of all other tests at the CDPHE. 27. Such impeachment may well, moreover, serve as the basis for excluding chemical BAC evidence or for eliminating the statutory presumption supporting guilt in a criminal trial. 28. When error is repetitious, it casts strong doubt on any claim that the error was random or the result of isolated mistake. See e.g., People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (discussing the doctrine of chances); People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (explaining that modus operandi and common schemes tend to negate a claim of mistake or accident). 29. As such, the circumstances described above obliterate any notion that Ms. Burbach's certified laboratory maintains regular compliance with the Department's prescribed standard operating procedure, or that error by any testing analyst will be identified and corrected when Ms. Burbach signs-off on results as the Supervising Analyst. 30. Nor can the exculpatory value of this evidence be eclipsed by Ms. Burbach s self-serving assurances, who has become a self-interested and conflicted party. Indeed, she has been either untruthful or incompetent in her sworn affidavit issued to try to explain this situation. See 7-9, supra. The security of her position as laboratory supervisor for the CDHPE would be threatened by disclosure of systemic laboratory error beyond those cases initiated by Mr. Fox- Rivera. 31. Ms. Burbach asserts that the lab's problems will be sufficiently resolved through retesting all of the cases Mr. Fox-Rivera analyzed. But by declining to examine the integrity of results in other cases, she is effectively shifting and spreading blame away from herself and onto 6
7 Mr. Fox-Rivera. The self-serving inference from such a limited investigation is that only the initial analyst is at fault when erroneous BAC results are obtained, while she and any other Supervising Analyst, are blameless. 32. Such limited, self-serving investigatory measures by a conflicted party cannot be deemed sufficient to assure the reliability of testing procedures where the laboratory's results are offered as grounds for a presumption against the accused. When two or more people are implicated in misdeeds, the tendency of one to shift and spread blame to the other is common, and this makes self-serving assurances inherently unreliable. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 131 (1999); see also Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (finding evidence bearing on a witness' bias and motivation to fabricate is a prototypical form of impeachment). 33. Therefore, it is much more than merely "plausible" that records relating to laboratory error at Ms. Burbach's laboratory have exculpatory value in this case. See Ritchie, supra. The information relates to chemical BAC testing, which is the linchpin of the case, and it is inherently exculpatory. 34. As further grounds for this motion, Defendant states that denial of the requested specific discovery will deny Defendant the following constitutional rights: a. The right to not be deprived of his life and liberty without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution; b. The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him as required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution; c. The right to effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution; and d. The right to obtain use in his defense evidence favorable to him or exculpatory in nature, either on the issue of guilt or punishment, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution. CONCLUSION Defendant requests the Court to compel the prosecution to disclose the records and information listed in Defendant s Motion to Compel Discovery or, In the Alternative, to Dismiss the Charges. 7
8 Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 6, 2012 Attorney for the Defendant: The Orr Law Firm L.L.C. Rhidian D.W. Orr Nathan Johnson Shawn Gillum Richard Hernandez CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I certify that on 06/06/2012 the above-titled Motion was filed with the Court by [ X ] mail using the United States Postal Service or [ ] personal delivery to the below address; and a true and accurate copy was served on the First Judicial District Attorney s Office by fax to the following number: Jefferson County Court Division B 100 Jefferson County Pkwy. Golden, CO Shawn Gillum Attorney at Law The Orr Law Firm, LLC. 8
the defense written or recorded statements of the defendant or codefendant, the defendant s
DISCOVERY AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE I. Introduction In Utah, criminal defendants are generally entitled to broad pretrial discovery. Rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that upon request
More informationServing the Law Enforcement Community and the Citizens of Washington
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS & POLICE CHIEFS 3060 Willamette Drive NE Lacey, WA 98516 ~ Phone: (360) 486-2380 ~ Fax: (360) 486-2381 ~ Website: www.waspc.org Serving the Law Enforcement Community
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 4
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 4 Court of Appeals No. 11CA0241 Larimer County District Court No 02CR1044 Honorable Daniel J. Kaup, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Richard Montgomery appeals the district court s denial of his motion for a new
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT January 3, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff-Appellee, No.
More informationADOPTED JUNE 19, 2013 MODEL POLICY DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES
ADOPTED JUNE 19, 2013 MODEL POLICY DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS 2013 1 This written
More informationIN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
Edwin S. Wall, A7446 ATTORNEY AT LAW 8 East Broadway, Ste. 405 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801 523-3445 Facsimile: (801 746-5613 Electronic Notice: edwin@edwinwall.com IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL
More information2016 CO 19. No. 15SC298, People in the Interest of E.G. Criminal Procedure Criminal Discovery Constitutional Law.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 93-714 Opinion Delivered June 3, 2010 JESSIE LEE BUCHANAN Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER
More informationPetitioner, Respondent.
No. 13-347 In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATE OF CALIFORNIA Petitioner, v. BALDOMERO GUTIERREZ Respondent. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, LLC, d/b/a The Palm Beach Post, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 4D15-4572 STATE OF FLORIDA, JAMAL DAVID SMITH, AND
More informationOverview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure. Basic Concepts. What is Proof (Evidence) David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx.
Overview of Pretrial & Trial Procedure David Hamilton City Attorney Reno & Honey Grove Tx Basic Concepts PresumptionofInnocence:BurdenonStateto erase presumption by proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Absolute
More informationD-R-A-F-T (not adopted; do not cite)
To: Council, Criminal Justice Section From: ABA Forensic Science Task Force Date: September 12, 2011 Re: Discovery: Lab Reports RESOLUTION: D-R-A-F-T (not adopted; do not cite) Resolved, That the American
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION
Case 4:16-cr-00010-BMM Document 80 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 14 BRYAN T. DAKE Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney=s Office P.O. Box 3447 Great Falls, MT 59403 119 First Ave. North, #300 Great Falls, MT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 4, 2014 v No. 313482 Macomb Circuit Court HOWARD JAMAL SANDERS, LC No. 2012-000892-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 3:15-cr AJB Document 11 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 4
Case :-cr-0-ajb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 DONOVAN & DONOVAN Barbara M. Donovan, Esq. California State Bar Number: The Senator Building 0 West F. Street San Diego, California 0 Telephone: ( - Attorney
More informationMISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. No. 1822-CR00642 Div. 16 ERIC GREITENS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
More informationREDACTED MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER D [D-263] CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
REDACTED District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado Filed Arapahoe County Courthouse 7325 S. Potomac St., Centennial, CO 80112 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, DEC 2 4 2014 Plaintiff CLERK OF THE COMBINED
More informationCase 3:08-cr JM Document 10 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case :0-cr-0-JM Document Filed 0//00 Page of LEILA W. MORGAN Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. California State Bar No. Broadway, Suite 00 San Diego, CA -00 ( -/Fax: ( - E-Mail:Leila_Morgan@fd.org Attorneys
More information(D-036) MR. WATTS OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT MOTION [K]
District Court, Weld County, Colorado Court address: 901 9 th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER WATTS, Defendant John Walsh, Atty. Reg. No. 42616 Kathryn
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN GRAHAM, a.k.a. JOHN BOY PATTON, and VINE RICHARD MARSHALL, a.k.a. RICHARD VINE
More informationBRADY Case Law Florida
BRADY Case Law Florida Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Exculpatory and/or impeachment evidence must be given to the defense by the government whether asked for or not. United States v. Biaggi, 675
More informationCase: /08/2009 Page: 1 of 11 DktEntry: NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-10462 04/08/2009 Page: 1 of 11 DktEntry: 6875605 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 08 2009 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 07-10462 MOLLY C. DWYER,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges McClanahan, Petty and Beales Argued at Salem, Virginia TERRY JOE LYLE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0121-07-3 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 29, 2008
More information2019COA2. In this criminal case, a division of the court of appeals is. asked to decide whether a police officer is authorized to request that
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationHAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO State of Ohio : CASE NO.: PLAINTIFF : JUDGE: -vs- : DEFENDANT : : MOTION TO DISMISS Now comes Defendant,, by and through counsel, and hereby moves the Court to dismiss the charge
More informationCASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Webb, JJ., concur. Announced: May 1, 2008
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1051 Douglas County District Court No. 03CR691 Honorable Thomas J. Curry, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Brett
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : No. 796 CR 2009 : FRANCINE B. GEUSIC, : Defendant : Cynthia A. Dyrda-Hatton, Esquire
More information2016 CO 63. No. 15SC136, People v. Hoskin Statutory Interpretation Due Process Traffic Infraction Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationBRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION The following is an internal policy that addresses
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS. l l L INTRODUCTION. n. BACKGROUND
FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 6 7 8 COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, Plaintiff, vs. PETERKIN FLORESCA TABABA, Defendant.
More informationA. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Issue
In the wake of the passage of the state law pertaining to so-called red light traffic cameras, [See Acts 2008, Public Chapter 962, effective July 1, 2008, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. 55-8-198 (Supp. 2009)],
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 27
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW 2011-19 HOUSE BILL 27 AN ACT TO (1) CREATE THE NORTH CAROLINA FORENSIC SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, (2) ENCOURAGE EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE SOURCES OF
More information2014 CO 58M. Owens and Ray petitioned pursuant to C.A.R. 21 for relief from a series of
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationBrady and Exculpatory Evidence
V Brady and Exculpatory Evidence Stacey M. Soule State Prosecuting Attorney @OSPATX www.spa.texas.gov John R. Messinger Assistant State Prosecuting Attorney Brady Morton Act Rules of Professional Conduct
More informationMotion for Rehearing Denied October 23, 1981 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. CHOUINARD, 1981-NMSC-096, 96 N.M. 658, 634 P.2d 680 (S. Ct. 1981) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, vs. MARK ALLEN CHOUINARD, Defendant-Respondent No. 13423 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0185P (6th Cir.) File Name: 04a0185p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY. CASE No. 07-CR-0043
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Fax: 1-- Email: twood@callatg.com Attorney for Benjamin Jones IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE
More informationMODEL BRADY POLICY I. THE BRADY RULE
MODEL BRADY POLICY This Policy sets forth the prosecuting authority s disclosure requirements regarding witnesses and is intended to assure compliance with the law, to protect witnesses and defendants
More informationSection 1983 Cases Arising from Criminal Convictions
Touro Law Review Volume 18 Number 4 Excerpts From the Practicing Law Institute's 17th Annual Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation Program Article 7 May 2015 Section 1983 Cases Arising from Criminal Convictions
More informationKing County Prosecuting Attorney's Office Brady Committee Protocol
DANIEL T. SATTERBERG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Office of the Prosecuting Attorney CRIMINAL DIVISION W554 Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296-9000 Prosecuting Attorney's Office Brady
More informationCertification of Word Count 2083
COLORADO SUPREME COURT 2 E 14 th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 09CA1506 El Paso County District Court No. 07CR3795 SALVADOR ESQUIVEL-CASTILLO, PETITIONER, v. DATE
More informationCHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE
Brady Issues and Post-Conviction Relief San Francisco Training Seminar July 15, 2010 CHEAT SHEET AUTHORITIES ON BRADY & STATE HABEAS PRACTICE By J. Bradley O Connell First District Appellate Project, Assistant
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 5, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON December 5, 2006 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD ODOM Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 91-07049 Chris Craft, Judge
More informationFrancis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John
I. Overview of the Complaint Francis DeBlanc, Bobby Freeman, Michael Morales, Kevin Guillory, and John Alford were part of a team of Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted Michael Anderson
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) VS. ) REQUEST FOR ) VOLUNTARY DISCOVERY ) (ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ) DISCOVERY) Defendant.
More informationDiv.: R ORDER RE: Defense Motion to Strike Rape Shield Statute as Facially Unconstitutional
DISTRICT COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 885 E. Chambers Road P.O. Box 597 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. Defendant: KOBE BEAN BRYANT. σcourt USE ONLYσ Case Number: 03 CR
More informationDISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES
DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES 1 I, BACKGROUND ln representing the State of Washington, Prosecuting Attorneys function as ministers of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationINTRODUCTION. The State has charged the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, a Minnesota
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT CRIMINAL COURT DIVISION State of Minnesota, Court File No: 62-CR-15-4175 Plaintiff, vs. The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant(s). Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The defendant(s), appeared for
More informationCriminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady
Criminal Law Section Luncheon The Current State of Discovery in Virginia vs. The Intractable John L. Brady Shannon L. Taylor Commonwealth's Attorney's Office P.O. Box 90775 Henrico VA 23273-0775 Tel: 804-501-5051
More informationProcedural Rights. The Brady Rule
The Factual Scenario Continues The local district attorney asks to review the internal affairs file, and later decides that one of the officers was not truthful. The DA places the officer on his agency
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 19 April Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 25 February 2010
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationPEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure
PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. tms@manningllp.com MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP Five Questions Five
More informationSTATE OF ) IN COURT ) SS: COUNTY OF ) CAUSE NUMBER: Motion for Discovery regarding Bloodstain Pattern Analysis
STATE OF ) IN COURT ) SS: COUNTY OF ) CAUSE NUMBER: STATE OF ) ) vs. ) ) X ) Motion for Discovery regarding Bloodstain Pattern Analysis The defendant, by counsel, respectfully requests that this Court,
More informationCase 6:18-cr RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:18-cr-00043-RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 6:18-cr-43-Orl-37DCI
More informationU.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington Field Office 1131 M Street, N.E. Washington, D.C v. Agency No.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington Field Office 1131 M Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20507 Complainant EEOC No. v. Agency No. JEH JOHNSON, Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security
More informationINSTRUCTIONS TO FILE A PETITION TO SEAL ARREST AND CRIMINAL RECORDS
INSTRUCTIONS TO FILE A PETITION TO SEAL ARREST AND CRIMINAL RECORDS These standard instructions are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice about your case. If you choose to
More informationMOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL [D-267] CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
REDACTED District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado Arapahoe County Courthouse 7325 S. Potomac St., Centennial, CO 80112 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Plaintiff Filed JAN o'7 2015 CLERK OF THE COMBINED
More information2018 CO 70. No. 15SC163, Zoll v. People Disclosure In Camera Review Critical Stage.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:16-cr-00093-TJC-JRK Document 188 Filed 06/08/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID 5418 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
JAMES S. THOMSON, ESQ. - SBN Law Offices of JAMES S. THOMSON Delaware Street Berkeley, CA ( - james@ycbtal.net JOHN T. PHILIPSBORN, ESQ. - SBN Law Offices of JOHN T. PHILIPSBORN 0 Polk Street, Suite 0
More informationThomas Twillie v. Bradley Foulk, et al
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-13-2010 Thomas Twillie v. Bradley Foulk, et al Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-3316
More informationDISTRICT COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 885 E. Chambers Road P.O. Box 597 Eagle, Colorado Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
DISTRICT COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 885 E. Chambers Road P.O. Box 597 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. Defendant: KOBE BEAN BRYANT. σ COURT USE ONLY σ Case Number: 03
More informationSENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: ;
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH D. BERNARD, P.C. JOSEPH D. BERNARD, ESQ. ERICA M. BRUNO, ESQ. ONE MONARCH PLACE, SUITE 1100 SPRINGFIELD, MA 01144 TELEPHONE: (413 731 9995 FAX (413 730 6647 EMAIL: joe@bernardatlaw.com
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. STOWERS, J. wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: DAN SOSA, JR., Senior Justice, WILLIAM RIORDAN, Justice AUTHOR: STOWERS OPINION
1 STATE V. WORLEY, 1984-NMSC-013, 100 N.M. 720, 676 P.2d 247 (S. Ct. 1984) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURTIS WORLEY, Defendant-Appellant No. 14691 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1984-NMSC-013,
More informationRobert Morton v. Michelle Ricci
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-8-2009 Robert Morton v. Michelle Ricci Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1801 Follow
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
Hill v. Dixon Correctional Institute Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION DWAYNE J. HILL, aka DEWAYNE HILL CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1819 LA. DOC #294586 VS. SECTION
More informationStrickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the deficient performance/resulting prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY
Terri Wood, OSB #88332 Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 730 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 97402 541-484-4171 Attorney for John Doe IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OREGON,
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA19 Court of Appeals No. 14CA2387 Weld County District Court No. 13CR642 Honorable Shannon Douglas Lyons, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. Nos. 92-CF-1039 & 95-CO-488. Appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA102 Court of Appeals No. 12CA1589 City and County of Denver District Court No. 09CR5412 Honorable Anne M. Mansfield, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Attorney for Defendant IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff,
More informationA Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
EXPERIENCE A Return to Brady Basics By Solomon L. Wisenberg and Meredith A. Rieger BARNES & THORNBURG LLP I. Introduction For nearly fifty years, the United States Supreme Court s decisions in Brady v.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. PARKER, JR. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. M-7661
More informationCase 2:11-cr MLCF-ALC Document 51 Filed 06/20/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA V. NO.
Case 2:11-cr-00048-MLCF-ALC Document 51 Filed 06/20/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION V. NO. 11-48 HENRY M. MOUTON SECTION
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA129 Court of Appeals No. 15CA0410 Adams County District Court No. 13CR1830 Honorable John E. Popovich, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, JAVIER SOLIS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed November 26, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER SOLIS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0084 Filed November 26, 2014 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No.
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA89 Court of Appeals No. 13CA1305 Arapahoe County District Court No. 02CR2082 Honorable Michael James Spear, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 11, 2016 v No. 326232 Kent Circuit Court DANYELL DARSHIEK THOMAS, LC No. 14-000789-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA165 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1987 City and County of Denver District Court No. 13CV32470 Honorable Morris B. Hoffman, Judge Trina McGill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIA Airport
More informationMotion for New Trial 07/01/14 Page 1 of 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1. Grounds for new trial Verdict contrary to evidence O.C.G.A
Motion for New Trial 07/01/14 Page 1 of 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Grounds for new trial... 1.1 Verdict contrary to evidence O.C.G.A. 5-5-20... 1.2 Verdict contrary to justice O.C.G.A. 5-5-20... 1.3 Verdict
More information2017 CO 37. No. 13SC791, People v. Romero Criminal Law Expert Testimony Jury Access to Exhibits.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More information2016 CO 10. No. 12SC826, Mulberger v. People Criminal Case Jury Selection Challenges for Cause.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BRYAN MAGA. Argued: October 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: May 16, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More information2014 CO 47. No. 13SA102, People v. Storlie Criminal Law Dismissal, Nolle Prosequi, or Discontinuance.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationPAUL J. D'AMICO OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN FEBRUARY 27, 2014 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices PAUL J. D'AMICO OPINION BY v. Record No. 130549 JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN FEBRUARY 27, 2014 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY Robert M.D.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY
MONTEREY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER JAMES S. EGAR, PUBLIC DEFENDER William R. McLennan, Contract Deputy Public Defender 1022 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)544-7950/ / Mon. Pub. Def. (831) 755-5058
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-06023-02-CR-SJ-DW ) STEPHANIE E. DAVIS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS. ,Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 480 (1963); accord, United States v.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: EVEN WHEN ARREST IS MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT, OFFICERS NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE SOURCE OF INFORMATION USED TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE I N McCray v. Illinois' the
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2015 USA v. Prince Isaac Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice CAROLYN T. CASH OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 950720 January 12, 1996 COMMONWEALTH
More informationEffective January 1, 2016
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Effective January 1, 2016 SECTION 1: PURPOSE The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Mar 31 2015 23:29:39 2014-KA-01267-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LOREN WENDELL ROSS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-01267-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
More informationImplied Consent Testing & the Fourth Amendment
Implied Consent Testing & the Fourth Amendment Shea Denning School of Government November 2015 What exactly is an implied consent offense anyway? A person charged with such an offense may be required (pursuant
More informationDrug Chemistry Essentials: Importance of Standardized Forensic Methods for the Analysis of Seized Drugs A Legal Perspective
Drug Chemistry Essentials: Importance of Standardized Forensic Methods for the Analysis of Seized Drugs A Legal Perspective ---Alec Fitzgerald Hall, Esq. The Sixth Amendment provides, In all criminal prosecutions,
More information14 Guilty Pleas. Part A. Introduction GUILTY PLEAS IN JUVENILE COURT
14 Guilty Pleas Part A. Introduction 14.01 GUILTY PLEAS IN JUVENILE COURT In all jurisdictions a juvenile respondent can enter a guilty plea in a delinquency case, just as an adult defendant can in a criminal
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, vs. STEVEN DALE GREEN, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT
More information