Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 11151 - 11160 of 58331 for speedy trial.
Search results 11151 - 11160 of 58331 for speedy trial.
State v. Patricia A. Nichols
) on counts one through thirty-four. ¶2 Nichols argues that her trial counsel was constitutionally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3629 - 2005-03-31
) on counts one through thirty-four. ¶2 Nichols argues that her trial counsel was constitutionally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=3629 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
for four months. Five weeks before trial, Honeywell identified three witnesses who would rebut
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104441 - 2017-09-21
for four months. Five weeks before trial, Honeywell identified three witnesses who would rebut
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=104441 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
. Attorney Peirce filed but withdrew a postconviction motion challenging the effectiveness of Pitts’s trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=147257 - 2017-09-21
. Attorney Peirce filed but withdrew a postconviction motion challenging the effectiveness of Pitts’s trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=147257 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Steve B. Tracy
, contrary to § 943.20(1)(a), STATS. Tracy argues: (1) the trial court erroneously admitted telephonic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14033 - 2014-09-15
, contrary to § 943.20(1)(a), STATS. Tracy argues: (1) the trial court erroneously admitted telephonic
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14033 - 2014-09-15
CA Blank Order
. Attorney Peirce filed but withdrew a postconviction motion challenging the effectiveness of Pitts’s trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147257 - 2015-08-24
. Attorney Peirce filed but withdrew a postconviction motion challenging the effectiveness of Pitts’s trial
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=147257 - 2015-08-24
State v. Frederick Harvey
postconviction motion for a new trial. Harvey argues (1) that he did not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6681 - 2005-03-31
postconviction motion for a new trial. Harvey argues (1) that he did not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6681 - 2005-03-31
State v. Dion C. Mitchell
motion. See Wis. Stat. § 941.30(1) (2001–02).[1] He claims that the trial court erroneously exercised
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6225 - 2005-03-31
motion. See Wis. Stat. § 941.30(1) (2001–02).[1] He claims that the trial court erroneously exercised
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6225 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
the effectiveness of trial counsel. On appeal, Salenius again challenges counsel’s effectiveness and also argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184645 - 2017-09-21
the effectiveness of trial counsel. On appeal, Salenius again challenges counsel’s effectiveness and also argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=184645 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
court denying her motion for a new trial in the grounds phase of the proceedings. She argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108051 - 2017-09-21
court denying her motion for a new trial in the grounds phase of the proceedings. She argues
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108051 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Bonnie L.K.
contention is that the trial court lost competency to proceed in the underlying CHIPS proceeding in 1991
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10900 - 2017-09-20
contention is that the trial court lost competency to proceed in the underlying CHIPS proceeding in 1991
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10900 - 2017-09-20