Sign In
Free Newsletter
Mo. high court considers whether Zoom testimony is ‘face-to-face’ confrontation
The Missouri Supreme Court heard a case on Sept. 15 that could determine if a witness’ Zoom testimony violated the defendant’s rights to face-to-face confrontation and cross-examination. Fourteen law professors […]
Tips on executing a powerful cross-examination
Cross-examination is like a chain saw. In the hands of the careless advocate, it can dismember your own client’s case with a single mistake. For the prepared trial lawyer, cross-examination […]
Appeals court overturns Baltimore murder conviction
A Maryland appeals court has overturned the first-degree murder conviction and life sentence of a man who hired someone to kill his fiancée in Baltimore but then might have performed the deadly deed himself.
Appeals court overturns child sex abuse conviction
A Maryland appeals court has overturned the conviction and 41-year prison sentence of a man accused of sexually abusing a pre-teen neighbor, saying he was denied his constitutional right to adequately cross examine the boy at trial and that the judge’s instruction to the jury improperly presumed a crime had been committed.
JAMES CROSSLEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress an out-of-court identification based on an improperly suggestive photo array? 2. Did the trial court violate Appellant’s Confrontation Clause rights when, during cross-examination, it denied Appellant a full and fair opportunity to explore the issue of bias?
ADENE BEKELE v. STATE of MARYLAND
Convicted of kidnapping and related crimes, Bekele asks this Court to review rulings that constrained the scope of the defense cross-examination of a prosecution witness.
PHILLIP HERRELL v. STATE of MARYLAND
Appealing his first-degree murder conviction, appellant asks: I. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in admitting evidence regarding the extent of appellant’s gang involvement. II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the defense’s cross-examination of a prosecution witness.
