Attorney Circulation=24,206; Expert Circulation=11,105 Unique visitors to our site last month=15,325
Law
|
Lear v. Fields 2 CA-SA 2010-0074 Arizona Court of Appeals. Expert Witnesses. The Court has quashed a new law designed to limit who can testify as an expert witness less than a year after business groups lobbied state lawmakers to approve it. See 'In The News' below.
|
|
Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587 U.S. Supreme Court. Criminal Law, Forensics. In a murder prosecution, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the denial of petitioner's habeas petition is reversed where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d) applied to petitioner's petition, even though the state court's order was unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the court's reasoning; and 2) the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that, because petitioner's attorney had not consulted forensic blood experts or introduced expert evidence, the State Supreme Court could not reasonably have concluded counsel provided adequate representation.
|
|
In Re Brittany C. California Court of Appeal, 01/20/2011. Family Law. Juvenile court's visitation order that visits with petitioners' four youngest children were to be monitored and held in a therapeutic setting is affirmed where: 1) because the father was not authorized to file a notice of appeal on his eldest daughter's behalf, the daughter's appeal is dismissed; and 2) the juvenile court had the power to suspend visits when continuing them would be harmful to a child's emotional well-being and the visitation order was appropriate as there was nothing improper in the court taking a step back to consider the recommendations of a therapist and the desires of the children before attempting to fashion a visitation plan that has a hope of success.
|
|
U.S v Ham U.S Court of Appeals, 6th Circ. Criminal Law, Investigators/Experts. Conviction of defendant for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, and a 190-month sentence followed by eight years of supervised release, are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly admitted the expert testimony of an agent as it was highly relevant and helped the jury in resolving the central issue of whether defendant possessed the crack with intent to distribute; 2) an investigator's testimony concerning plastic baggies and scales did not constitute "expert testimony"…
|
|
Events/Training
|
|