Motion to Quash Qualified Theft/Distinction from Carnapping

It is further alleged as to Count II, MURDER, that the defendant acted intentionally, deliberately, and with premeditation. It is further alleged as to Counts I & II, MURDER, the defendant committed more than one murder in the 1st or 2nd degree in this proceeding, and is a special circumstance within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and inculpatory statements in District Court. Suppression was granted as a fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule. The Court of Appeals upheld the motion with the claim that private security officers were 'state actors'. The Supreme Court upheld that the

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Lastly, John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint, connecting their case to that of Roe’s. They were seeking declaratory and injunctive help and they made the District attorney the defendant. Both, John and Mary

Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 927, Defendant, Lauris Hollis (“Defendant”), through undersigned counsel, moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action. Article 927 provides that the Peremptory exception of no cause of action and no right of action or no interest in the plaintiff to institute suit. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 923 provides that the function of the peremptory exception is to have the plaintiff’s action declared legally nonexistent, or barred by effect of law, and hence the exception tends to dismiss or defeat the action.

Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his

GSMC and Ocwen objected to the statement and the objection was sustained. “[W]ith respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion.” Schmitt v. State, 140 Md. App. 1, 17 (2001). Here, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to the contents of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-1002 requires that “[t]o prove the content of a writing . . ., the original writing . . . is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.” Likewise, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to statements made by the author of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-802 generally prohibits the admission of “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Md. Rule 5-801(c). Finally, litigants must be afforded “a reasonable opportunity to present material that may be pertinent to the court’s decision as required by Maryland Rule 2-501.” Balt. Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 691 (2009). Sucklal, however, was not denied an opportunity to oppose GSMC and Ocwen’s motion for summary judgement. Indeed, Sucklal failed to respond to the motion for summary

In the juvenile court proceedings, Michael filed a motion to suppress the statements on the basis that his request to see his probation officer had been denied, therefore invoking his right against self incrimination. Michael argued that this request was the same as requesting an attorney. The Court

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

Miami Dade County Court, Criminal Misdemeanors Division judge who hears the motion to suppress on behalf of the four defendants. Write an opinion finding whether the physical evidence and testimonial evidence are admissible at trial or not. And state the law that supports your ruling.

If you contend that the Plaintiff has made an admission, or declaration against interest, please state the substance of the alleged admission or declaration together with the time and place of the alleged admission or declaration and the names and addresses and telephone numbers of the persons, if any, who were present.

COMES NOW, Defendant, Martin Katz, by and through his attorneys M. David Stallings, Esquire, Bryant S. Green, Esquire, and Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 of Counter Complaint, and in support thereof states as follows:

THE THE APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF THE CASE, STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND ARGUMENTS NUMBERED IV-VI ARE BACKED BY EVIDENCE CONTAINED ON THE RECORD. EVEN SOME OF THIS EVIDENCE WERE PROVIDED BY OPPOSING

or more other charges, the prosecutor should note that this is the basis of the