WASHINGTON – After taking up and hearing arguments in a case considering whether a delay caused by a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent’s defense should be a factor in determining whether the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.
A murder defendant was not denied a fair trial when he was prohibited from calling a witness that his lawyer had decided not to call, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled in affirming a conviction.
Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to a pretrial hearing to challenge the viability of the charges against him when a restraining order has frozen the assets he needs to retain his counsel of choice?
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a pretrial hearing to challenge the viability of the charges against them when a restraining order has frozen the assets they need to retain their counsel of choice.
WASHINGTON – In a case that raises the question of whether judges, rather than juries, can constitutionally decide factors that could trigger an increase in the minimum sentence, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed reluctant to shake up a sentencing scheme that Congress and the courts have relied upon for more than a decade.
A murder defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the admission of incriminating cell phone records without proper authentication, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.
A DUI defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by the admission of the certificate of calibration for the breath test machine used to determine the level of alcohol in his system, the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
WASHINGTON – The issue of whether criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to be warned of the immigration consequences of guilty pleas, as established by a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is retroactive was front and center during oral arguments on Thursday.
A murder defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by the testimony of a pathologist who expressed opinions based on an autopsy report prepared by another doctor who did not testify, the California Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a conviction.
A defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by the admission of a prosecution expert’s testimony regarding a lab report that was prepared by a nontestifying technician, the California Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a conviction.