Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 25571 - 25580 of 58547 for speedy trial.
Search results 25571 - 25580 of 58547 for speedy trial.
[PDF]
State v. James J. Bartow
conclude the trial court did not error in determining there was probable cause to arrest and we therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14097 - 2014-09-15
conclude the trial court did not error in determining there was probable cause to arrest and we therefore
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14097 - 2014-09-15
State v. Michael James Last
, statements and other factors to determine knowledge. The trial court refused to give the requested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4895 - 2005-03-31
, statements and other factors to determine knowledge. The trial court refused to give the requested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=4895 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
but does not compel the State to file a response; (2) whether Lewis’s trial counsel was ineffective in jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38453 - 2009-07-27
but does not compel the State to file a response; (2) whether Lewis’s trial counsel was ineffective in jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=38453 - 2009-07-27
County of Dane v. Kellie Ann Dixon
. Dixon claims the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12119 - 2005-03-31
. Dixon claims the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. We conclude
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=12119 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
to be admitted during his trial. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41619 - 2009-09-30
to be admitted during his trial. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=41619 - 2009-09-30
[PDF]
State v. Phillip M. Ross
tainted the jury’s assessment of conflicting expert testimony. Alternatively, he requests a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18694 - 2017-09-21
tainted the jury’s assessment of conflicting expert testimony. Alternatively, he requests a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=18694 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
NOTICE
intent to deliver; (2) the trial court improperly prohibited him from arguing to the jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29737 - 2014-09-15
intent to deliver; (2) the trial court improperly prohibited him from arguing to the jury
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29737 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
NOTICE
, denying his postconviction motion to reconsider the trial court’s May No. 2006AP1989 2006AP1990
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29110 - 2014-09-15
, denying his postconviction motion to reconsider the trial court’s May No. 2006AP1989 2006AP1990
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=29110 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
introduced inadmissible evidence at his trial, and that trial counsel was ineffective in his pretrial efforts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39809 - 2009-08-19
introduced inadmissible evidence at his trial, and that trial counsel was ineffective in his pretrial efforts
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=39809 - 2009-08-19
Ronald Rixmann v. Beverly Dehmer
that the trial court erred by construing the valuation provision of the shareholder agreement in a way
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13596 - 2005-03-31
that the trial court erred by construing the valuation provision of the shareholder agreement in a way
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13596 - 2005-03-31