Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Defendant Dustin James Barral was convicted of two counts of sexual assault with a minor under 14 years of age by a jury. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the trial court committed a structural error by failing to administer an oath or affrimation to the jury panel prior to commencing voir dire. This error required reversal and a new trial.
Summary Of Artiga-Morales V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 77, Janine Lee
Summary Of Artiga-Morales V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 77, Janine Lee
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In the absence of a rule or statute mandating disclosure of jury background information from the prosecution to the defense, no such obligation exists.[1] If policy considerations dictate that defendants should be allowed to see prosecution-developed jury dossiers, then a court rule should be proposed, considered and adopted as implicitly authorized by NRS 179A.100(7)(j). Such a procedure would allow the court to better assess the “scope of disparity, impact on juror privacy interests, the need to protect work product, practicality, and fundamental fairness
than this case, with its limited record and arguments.”
[1] This is the majority opinion. A …