Cases pin-citing Hale · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Hale

Cases pin-citing Hale

United States v. Hale  ·  1975  ·  43 pinpoint citations from 14 cases, 8 distinct passages.

Michael Nall v. BNSF Railway Company  ·  2019-02-15  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
"A basic rule of evidence provides that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness."
Cooper v. Starbucks Coffee Corp.  ·  2017-06-06  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
“silence is commonly thought to lack probative value on the question of whether a person has expressed tacit agreement or disagreement with contemporaneous statements of others”
Pedro Vega v. Charles Ryan  ·  2014-05-19  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
“In most circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force.”
Ross v. American Express Co.  ·  2014-04-10  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
“In most circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force.”
People v. Clary  ·  2013-06-25  ·  Michigan Supreme Court  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 45 L. Ed. 2d at 99
“In most circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force.”
United States v. Rivera-Donate  ·  2012-06-07  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
“A basic rule of evidence provides that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness. As a preliminary matter, however, the court must be persuaded that the statements are indeed inconsistent.”
Commonwealth v. Molina  ·  2011-11-09  ·  Superior Court of Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
“In most circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative force.”
Larry Kevin Bonner v. State  ·  2011-08-25  ·  Court of Appeals of Texas  ·  pin 422 U.S. at 171
“As a preliminary matter, however, the court must be persuaded that the statements are indeed inconsistent.”
United States v. Rodríguez-Berríos  ·  2009-07-23  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
“A basic rule of evidence provides that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness. As a preliminary matter, however, the court must be persuaded that the statements are indeed inconsistent.”
United States v. Rodriguez-Berrios  ·  2009-07-23  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
"A basic rule of evidence provides that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness. As a preliminary matter, however, the court must be persuaded that the statements are indeed inconsistent."
State v. Thomas  ·  2009-04-08  ·  Court of Appeals of Iowa  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 S. Ct. at 171
“Not only is evidence of silence at the time of arrest generally not very probative of a defendant’s credibility, but it also has a significant potential for prejudice.”
Kalouma v. Gonzales  ·  2008-01-15  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
"A basic rule of evidence provides that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness."
Kalouma v. Gonzales  ·  2007-08-28  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
"A basic rule of evidence provides that prior inconsistent statements may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness."
Taylor v. Commonwealth  ·  1998-02-03  ·  Court of Appeals of Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 422 L. Ed. 2d at 99
"In most circumstances silence is so ambiguous that it is of little probative value."