Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 6021 - 6030 of 12891 for prosecuting.
Search results 6021 - 6030 of 12891 for prosecuting.
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
of this no- merit review. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a person against a subsequent prosecution
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=379590 - 2021-06-22
of this no- merit review. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a person against a subsequent prosecution
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=379590 - 2021-06-22
[PDF]
State v. Andrew N. Bauerfield
that Norton had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in exchange for his testimony. Counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25758 - 2017-09-21
that Norton had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in exchange for his testimony. Counsel
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25758 - 2017-09-21
State v. Andrew N. Bauerfield
had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in exchange for his testimony. Counsel also tested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25758 - 2006-07-04
had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in exchange for his testimony. Counsel also tested
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25758 - 2006-07-04
[PDF]
FA-4104V; Summons with Minor Children
) (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for violation of this section if the action: 1. Is taken by a parent
/formdisplay/FA-4104V.pdf?formNumber=FA-4104V&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2023-01-05
) (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for violation of this section if the action: 1. Is taken by a parent
/formdisplay/FA-4104V.pdf?formNumber=FA-4104V&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2023-01-05
[PDF]
State v. Colin N. Gelford
the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-61 (1984
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14072 - 2014-09-15
the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-61 (1984
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=14072 - 2014-09-15
State v. James W. Jones
that the State destroyed exculpatory evidence. “[T]he suppression by the prosecution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13527 - 2005-03-31
that the State destroyed exculpatory evidence. “[T]he suppression by the prosecution
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=13527 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
prerogative to make decisions in the child’s best interest,” but objected to the “prosecution of Gimino
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=139836 - 2017-09-21
prerogative to make decisions in the child’s best interest,” but objected to the “prosecution of Gimino
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=139836 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Mark S. Barrows
was issued and the date of trial. Accordingly, the prosecution proceeded as a second offense OWI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11832 - 2017-09-21
was issued and the date of trial. Accordingly, the prosecution proceeded as a second offense OWI
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=11832 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
[her] objection.” The court therefore dismissed the objection for lack of prosecution. The court
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=822771 - 2024-07-09
[her] objection.” The court therefore dismissed the objection for lack of prosecution. The court
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=822771 - 2024-07-09
State v. Michael J. Baye
views the evidence and characterizes the State's case too narrowly. The prosecution's theory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8822 - 2005-03-31
views the evidence and characterizes the State's case too narrowly. The prosecution's theory
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=8822 - 2005-03-31