DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Holmes, 305 So. 2d 409.

16 citing documents.

  • State v. Shoemaker 488 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    See also, where the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of defense alibi witnesses where the witness was present during testimony of another alibi witness.
  • State v. Hardeman 467 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Coutee v. American Druggist Ins. Co. of Cincinnati 453 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    the Court approved the disqualification of a sequestered witness who had remained in the courtroom throughout the trial.
  • Collins v. DIVISION OF FOSTER CARE, ETC. 377 So. 2d 1266 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    824 , (1954); Summers, J., dissenting.
  • State v. Western 355 So. 2d 1314 La. 1978
    State v. Holmes, La., (1974); State v. Raymond, 258 La.
  • Hopkins v. Department of Highways 350 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    the Court approved the disqualification of a sequestered witness who had remained in the courtroom throughout the trial.
  • State v. Thornton 351 So. 2d 480 La. 1977
  • State v. Bell 346 So. 2d 1090 La. 1977
  • State v. Sims 346 So. 2d 664 La. 1977
    State v. Holmes, La., (1974); State v. Richey, 258 La.
  • State v. Williams 343 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977
    State v. Valentine, 262 La.
  • State v. Ardoin 340 So. 2d 1362 La. 1976
  • State v. Calloway 343 So. 2d 694 La. 1976
    In State v. Holmes, La., (1974), we stated: "The purpose behind the order of sequestration is to encourage development of the true facts of the case by preventing witnesses from being influenced by the testimony of other witnesses and by allowing for effective cross-examination.
  • State v. McDaniel 340 So. 2d 242 La. 1976
    State v. Coleman, 254 La.
  • State v. Badon 338 So. 2d 665 La. 1976
    State v. Batts, La., (1975); State v. Holmes, La., (1974); State v. McKinney, La., (1974); State v. Bradford, La., (1974); State v. Browning, La., (1974); State v. Lewis, La., (1974).
  • State v. Bias 337 So. 2d 426 La. 1976
    State v. Coleman, 254 La.
  • State v. Johnson 306 So. 2d 724 La. 1975
    Thus, we find from the facts that the victim only identified one person, the defendant, from the photographic lineup, and we have held in State v. Holmes, La., , decision rendered December 2, 1974, that it is not error to have the person identified in the photographic lineup participate also in a corporeal lineup, even though he may be the only common participant in the two procedures.