Comments on: CT rejects “automatic standing” rule http://apublicdefender.com/2007/07/24/ct-rejects-automatic-standing-rule/ Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:19:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/07/24/ct-rejects-automatic-standing-rule/#comment-3089 Gideon Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:09:43 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/07/24/ct-rejects-automatic-standing-rule/#comment-3089 I was too. However, they indicate in their opinion that on at least two prior occasions, they were asked to decide the issue and declined to do so, because it wasn't the right case. Whether that means that the record wasn't adequate or that the record wasn't adequate to reject "automatic standing" is left to one's imagination and bias. I was too. However, they indicate in their opinion that on at least two prior occasions, they were asked to decide the issue and declined to do so, because it wasn’t the right case.

Whether that means that the record wasn’t adequate or that the record wasn’t adequate to reject “automatic standing” is left to one’s imagination and bias.

]]> By: Alec http://apublicdefender.com/2007/07/24/ct-rejects-automatic-standing-rule/#comment-3088 Alec Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:38:43 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/07/24/ct-rejects-automatic-standing-rule/#comment-3088 I'm kind of surprised that was undecided. It comes up all the time in suppression motions, from what I've seen. I’m kind of surprised that was undecided. It comes up all the time in suppression motions, from what I’ve seen.

]]> By: University Update - Supreme Court - CT rejects “automatic standing” rule http://apublicdefender.com/2007/07/24/ct-rejects-automatic-standing-rule/#comment-3060 University Update - Supreme Court - CT rejects “automatic standing” rule Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:46:23 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/07/24/ct-rejects-automatic-standing-rule/#comment-3060 [...] House Link to Article supreme court CT rejects “automatic standing” rule » Posted at a public [...] [...] House Link to Article supreme court CT rejects “automatic standing” rule » Posted at a public [...]

]]>