DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jones, 354 So. 2d 530.

19 citing documents.

  • State v. Lucas 896 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    The Louisiana Supreme Court stated, : "Excluding the witness's testimony, in the absence of a sequestration violation with the consent or knowledge of the defendant or his counsel, is not a constitutionally permissible means of insuring reliable testimony."
  • State v. Jackson 863 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    The court there stated: the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: Although our jurisprudence allowing trial judges to 19enforce sequestration pursuant to La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Watson 844 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: Although our jurisprudence allowing trial judges to enforce sequestration pursuant to La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Chapman 683 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Searcy 621 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that, although the state has an interest in preventing testimonial influence, [T]hat interest is not sufficient to override the defendant's rights to have compulsory process and to present a defense under either the federal or the state constitution.
  • State v. Trahan 576 So. 2d 1 La. 1991
  • State v. Trahan 543 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Joubert 534 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Shoemaker 500 So. 2d 385 La. 1987
    Const. Art. 1, § 16; ..."
  • State v. Medford 489 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    this court recognized that: Although our jurisprudence allowing trial judges to enforce sequestration pursuant to La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Shoemaker 488 So. 2d 1084 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Const. Art. 1, § 16; State v. *1086 Boutte
  • State v. Robins 484 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Accordingly, we find that the case should be remanded to the trial court for an evi-dentiary hearing to determine the content of Williams’ testimony about the victim’s “general reputation for truth.” In choosing this disposition
  • State v. Huntley 438 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    offers an excellent discussion on the latitude afforded the trial judge regarding a violation of sequestration order.
  • State v. Warren 437 So. 2d 836 La. 1983
  • State v. Armstead 432 So. 2d 837 La. 1983
  • State v. Stewart 387 So. 2d 1103 La. 1980
  • State v. Boutte 384 So. 2d 773 La. 1980
    Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution, Article I, Section 16, Louisiana Constitution; (La.
  • State v. Wilson 360 So. 2d 166 La. 1978
  • State v. Western 355 So. 2d 1314 La. 1978