Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Bell Et Al.
482 U.S. 919
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1987-06-08
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- showing in support of request for funds for a forensic expert was insufficient
- defendant is harmed only if he uses a peremptory strike to remove venireperson and thereafter suffers detriment from a loss of the strike
- the definition of "under term of imprisonment" in § 13A-5-49 (1) encompasses persons on probation or parole
- "statements in the record such as `upon their oaths' are sufficient to show that a jury was sworn"
- ‘[a] minute entry is deemed to be a sufficient showing that the oath was administered’
- where defendant made no ‘showing of the need for a forensic expert’ to examine fingerprints on a beer can, he ‘was not unconstitutionally denied the assistance of experts’
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Bell Et Al.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 121 opinions
Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.