Testify - Judgment Search Results

Muddappa Vs. Panchaksharaiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR1230

kudoor j 1 this regular first appeal is by the defendant in o s no 2107 1980 on the file...

Anant Kibe and ors. Vs. Purushottam Rao and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1984SC1121; 1984(1)SCALE783; 1984Supp(1)SCC175; [1984]3SCR484; 1984(16)LC996(SC)

a p sen j 1 this appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment and decree of the madhya pradesh...

Smt. Shraddha Kumari Vs. Lucknow University and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1985All71

k n goyal j 1 the petitioner is head of the department and dean of the faculty of law in...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mrs. Kamal Sukumar Durgule and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1985SC119; (1985)87BOMLR49; 1984(2)SCALE793; (1985)1SCC234; [1985]2SCR129; 1985(17)LC432(SC)

..... scooter claimants plea that deceased was pillion rider while respondent was driving it eye witness testifying to same effect respondent taking different stands at different stages did not come forward to .....

Shri Vivekanand Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1984SC1779; 1984(2)SCALE178; (1984)4SCC19; 1984(16)LC838(SC)

..... on fire declaration found to be truthful son of deceased a child eye witness also testifying that accused was author of crime held accused is liable to be convicted in view .....

Dakshina Maharashtra JaIn Sabha Vs. Rabiyabi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR1405; 1985(1)KarLJ57

..... overcome only by offering the maker of the survey report come before the court and testify with regard to the accuracy of the report no such opportunity was available for the .....

Luce Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the court correctly identifies two reasons for precluding appellate review unless the defendant testifies at trial the careful weighing of probative value and prejudicial effect that rule 609 a ..... question turns on legal and not factual considerations a requirement that the defendant actually testify at trial to preserve the admissibility issue for appeal might not necessarily be appropriate the .....

James Vs. Kentucky

Court: US Supreme Court

..... because they were instructed to determine guilt from the evidence alone and because failure to testify is not evidence the commonwealth s argument is unpersuasive jurors are not lawyers they do ..... technical meaning of evidence they can be expected to notice a defendant s failure to testify and without limiting instruction to speculate about incriminating inferences from a defendant s silence id .....

Patton Vs. Yount

Court: US Supreme Court

..... regardless of what evidence might be presented twenty one others testified that they could only change their opinion if yount could ..... were nine veniremen who were unsuccessfully challenged for cause who also testified that they had opinions that they could change only if ..... exists in such cases the manner of the juror while testifying is oftentimes more indicative of the real character of his .....

Dobbert Vs. Wainwright

Court: US Supreme Court

..... imposed the death sentence dobbert s 13 year old son john iii testified at trial that he saw dobbert kick kelly in the stomach several ..... knew that the staff at the children s home wanted me to testify that my father killed my sister i looked up to these people ..... came off the medication i thought about what i had done in testifying that kelly was murdered when she died accidentally although i knew i .....