tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post5012155221604807987..comments2024-03-28T04:12:44.103-04:00Comments on The Confrontation Blog: Cert denied in Pendergrass (and reply brief)Richard D. Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08376534293308240526noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-32446715469120886552020-04-30T04:34:08.295-04:002020-04-30T04:34:08.295-04:00Haloo pak^^
Kami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawark...Haloo pak^^<br /><br />Kami dari SENTANAPOKER ingin menawarkan pak^^<br /><br />Untuk saat ini kami menerima Deposit Melalui Pulsa ya pak.<br /><br />*untuk minimal deposit 10ribu<br />*untuk minimal Withdraw 25ribu<br /><br />*untuk deposit pulsa kami menerima provider<br />-XL<br />-Telkomsel<br /><br /><br />untuk bonus yang kami miliki kami memiliki<br />*bonus cashback 0,5%<br />*bunus refferal 20%<br />*bonus gebiar bulanan (N-max,samsung Note 10+,Iphone xr 64G,camera go pro 7hero,Apple airpods 2 ,dan freechips)<br /><br />Daftar Langsung Di:<br /><br />SENTANAPOKER<br /><br />Kontak Kami;<br /><br />WA : +855 9647 76509<br />Line : SentanaPoker<br />Wechat : SentanaPokerLivechat Sentanapoker<br /><br />Proses deposit dan withdraw tercepat bisa anda rasakan jika bermain di Sentanapoker. So… ? tunggu apa lagi ? Mari bergabung dengan kami. Pelayanan CS yang ramah dan Proffesional dan pastinya sangat aman juga bisa anda dapatkan di Sentanapoker.yessy haryantohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16503331838637071246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-47741435704334462512010-08-03T12:02:45.385-04:002010-08-03T12:02:45.385-04:00The Illinois supreme court recently held that an e...The Illinois supreme court recently held that an expert's testimony regarding a DNA profile derived by a third-party lab from semen recovered from a rape victim did not constitute hearsay under the state's adoption of FRE 703, and, therefore, did not violated the defendant's confrontation rights. The testifying expert was not an employee of the lab and took no part in the analysis that produced the DNA profile. The expert did, however, personally conduct that statistical matching of the deduced profile to the defendant's profile. The case is People v. Sandy Williams.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-34424267150426409672010-06-15T12:59:28.059-04:002010-06-15T12:59:28.059-04:00The Cal Supremes may have been waiting to see if t...The Cal Supremes may have been waiting to see if the Court granted cert. in Pendergrass. <br /><br />They may also be waiting to see if, as I posted above, the Court uses Bryant to modify Crawford's (still relatively new) CC "witness" formulation.<br /><br />Previously, the Cal Supreme's sat on People v. Cage for a long time, waiting for the Court's opinion in Davis. <br /><br />They are a moderately conservative court. And not particularly interested in forging a path without some guidance from the Court.paul vnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-27913129802053835892010-06-15T12:40:44.141-04:002010-06-15T12:40:44.141-04:00An issue that Indiana raised in its BIO is that th...An issue that Indiana raised in its BIO is that the California Supreme Court is presently reviewing a handful of appeals addressing similar issues (e.g., People v. Dungo). In light of California’s “fiscal crisis,” does anyone have an idea when these cases will be resolved?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-31810665356232168102010-06-15T11:45:06.400-04:002010-06-15T11:45:06.400-04:00Why is it too soon? And why would there be no nee...Why is it too soon? And why would there be no need to resolve this issue?Richard D. Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08376534293308240526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-80728564375199481112010-06-15T08:23:43.703-04:002010-06-15T08:23:43.703-04:00Indiana's BIO was right on in Pendergrass. It ...Indiana's BIO was right on in Pendergrass. It is too soon for SCOTUS to tackle the issue(s) of technical reviewer and/or expert bases testimony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9532013.post-84019269469007847712010-06-14T12:17:26.807-04:002010-06-14T12:17:26.807-04:00No reason for the Court to decide the Pendergrass ...No reason for the Court to decide the Pendergrass issue. <br /><br />I (humbly) predict that the Court will use Bryant to redefine the test for determining who is a "witness," for CC purposes. <br /><br />And I predict that the new test will be consistent with the formulation set forth by the dissenting justices in Melendez-Diaz. <br /><br />Under this new test, far fewer out-of-court declarants will be CC "witnesses," than under the Crawford formulation.<br /><br />If I was writing a brief in Bryant, I would certainly be addressing this possible scenario.paul vnoreply@blogger.com