Brief filed: 05/12/2016
Tucker v. Idaho
Supreme Court of the State of Idaho; Case No. 43922
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District for Ada County, Case No. CV-OC-2015-10240 (The Honorable Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge, presiding).
The violations alleged by the plaintiffs cause ongoing and cognizable harm. The district court applied the wrong legal framework to the plaintiffs' claims. A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to counsel at any "critical stage" of the proceedings against him. The Sixth Amendment can also be violated if the attorney's performance fails to meet constitutional standards. Federal and state courts addressing claims for prospective relief, like the plaintiffs' claims here, have rejected application of the Strickland standard.
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Gia Cincone, Kilpatirck Townsend & Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jeffrey Ellis, Oregon Capital Resource Counsel, Portland, OR.