Defendant
In a civil matter, the party sued by the plaintiff; in a criminal matter, the party who is prosecuted.
The defendant, by plea (or exception) becomes the plaintiff.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
1968 Defendants Cannot Be Forced To Choose Between Rights
- In Simmons v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that when a criminal defendant chooses to testify at a pretrial hearing about certain evidence (which the defendant alleges was gathered by police in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure provision), that testimony – even if it is incriminating – cannot later be used against the defendant at trial. Otherwise, the court states, a defendant will be forced to choose between exercising his Fourth Amendment right (to try to suppress illegally obtained evidence) or his Fifth Amendment right (to refuse to give testimony against himself).
1979 Right To Public Trial Is To Protect Defendant
- In Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, the U.S. Supreme Court denies a claim by members of the press and public who were barred from a pretrial hearing in a criminal case. The Court rules that extensive pretrial publicity threatened the defendant’s ability to get a fair trial. The Court holds that the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is first and foremost for the benefit of the defendant and does not give the press or public an absolute right to attend criminal trials.
1821 Cohen vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264,
- A landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States that is most notable for the Court's assertion of its power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters if defendants claim that their constitutional rights have been violated. The Supreme court ruled in Cohen vs. Virginia, 1821, that this book, The Federalist Papers, by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay, was the exact record of the intent of the framers of the Constitution and it shall be liberally enforced in favor of you as you are the clearly intended beneficiary. Reading this book is forceful in understanding the intent behind the Constitution. Everything you can do to enhance your position of how the law makers thought when they framed this constitution makes your case stronger.
In the case of a plea in abeyance, the defendant enters a conditional plea of guilty which is then held in abeyance subject to a set of conditions. If the defendant fulfills these conditions, the charges are dropped. If the defendant fails to complete the conditions, the guilty plea is entered. For example, a defendant may be required to undergo a drug addiction treatment program or have a guilty plea entered.
- Admission of guilt is an oral or written statement by an accused acknowledging that they have committed a criminal offense. An admission of guilt can be indicated from the words of an accused even though specific words like “yes, I am guilty” are not used. In the case of U.S. v. Roberts, the First Circuit held that the phrase ‘admission of guilt’ does not have so clear and precise a meaning as to foreclose its extension to a defendant's admission to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt. The guideline by its terms uses the word ‘admission’ and does not require a formal plea of guilty.
- Unlike affirmative defenses, which all argue the defendant committed the acts in question but should not be held accountable due to the circumstances, an actual innocence defense argues that the defendant never committed prohibited actions in the first place. Despite their mutually exclusive nature, the principle of alternative pleading allows a party to raise both actual innocence and affirmative defenses at trial.
- Actual innocence can also be raised on appeal, though applications of this are usually limited to scenarios where new and strongly compelling evidence towards the defendant’s innocence has appeared. Additionally, when raised on appeal, the burden of proof to show actual innocence beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the defendant.
- Even if a defendant fails to fully complete a crime, they can still be charged with the attemptof that crime, i.e. in the case of an uncompleted or inchoate offense. The requirements for proving attempts vary by jurisdiction, though a party must always cross the line from mere thoughts or preparation to be found guilty of an attempted crime. Attempts can either be completed or incomplete.
- Brady material is derived from the United States Supreme Courtcase Brady v. Maryland in 1963. It established a rule that the prosecution has a constitutional duty of Due Process of Law to disclose material evidence favorable to a defendant. Later, in the State v. Carter case, the court found that such evidence should be “(1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching or contradictory, (2) discovered since the trial and not discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand, and (3) of the sort that would probably change the jury’s verdict if a new trial were granted.”
- In practice, if the prosecutor suppresses or fails to disclose evidence that is material to the defendant's guilt verdict or sentence, or influences the “credibility of a witness,” no matter whether the prosecution is of good or bad faith, intentionally or inadvertently, the defendant can use the Brady material to get a new trial. See: United States. v. Bagley. The prosecutor is not required to disclose entire files, but only “impeachment” and “exculpatory evidence” to the defense counsel, regardless of whether the evidence is in their possession or not or whether they are asked to do so or not. To be more specific, the prosecutor has an “affirmative duty” to search their files and the files of law enforcement officers who work on the case for material evidence. As to the defendant, they are required to demonstrate that if such material evidence is disclosed and used effectively, it might “affect the outcome of the trial” or “undermine confidence in the verdict.” See Kyles v. Whitley.
Capias Warrant / Bench Warrant
- In most instances, a capias warrant is issued in connection with failure to appear before the court in a criminal case. A defendant who fails to appear at a criminal court proceeding, for example, could expect a capias warrant to be issued for his or her arrest.
- Generally, under the common law character evidence is inadmissible in criminal cases unless the defendant raises the issue first. The U.S. Supreme Court in Michelson v. United States summarized the common law rule as “simply clos[ing] the whole matter of character, disposition and reputation to the prosecution’s case-in-chief.” The rationale is not because the evidence is irrelevant, but because “it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so over-persuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge.”
- Testifying for the defendant:
- Under common law, the defendant is allowed to call character witnesses to testify for his or her character. Character witnesses can only testify for the defendant by introducing testimony about the defendant’s reputation or by relevant instances of the defendant’s conduct. The government can then cross-examine that witness regarding his/her knowledge of specific instances of the defendant's misconduct in order to help the jury evaluate the quality of the character testimony.
- Civil Liability
- A civil liability is usually a contractual liability or a tort liability. A defendant of a civil liability is either “liable” or “not liable”. If a defendant is liable, he or she only needs to make remedies to the plaintiff, and not to face the risk of prison. The standard of burden of proof in a civil liability case is lower than in a criminal liability case. While in criminal case, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, in a civil case, “preponderance of the evidence” is usually enough.
- Collateral Attack
- Res judicata is a legal doctrine that serves as a defense to prevent the re-litigation of a claim or issue that has already been finally adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. Res Judica may be avoided if claimant was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue decided by a state court. He could file suit in a federal court to challenge the adequacy of the state's procedures. In that case the federal suit would be against the state and not against the defendant in the first suit.
- Generally speaking, criminal insanity is understood as a mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a defendant to understand their actions, or to understand that their actions are wrong. A defendant found to be criminally insane can assert an insanity defense. When asserting an insanity defense, the defendant essentially admits to having committed the wrongful act, but claims that they are not culpable because of their mental defect.
- A complete defense is a type of affirmative defense that nullifies an entire claim against the defendant. Complete defenses are relevant in both civil lawsuits and criminal proceedings.
- A compulsory counterclaim is a claim made by a defendant against a plaintiff that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim. The claim is compulsory in this situation in that it must be raised in the defendant's answer, or it is waived. If defendant fails to assert counterclaim in his answer, he is thereafter precluded from asserting it against plaintiff in the plaintiff's pending action or in an independent action.
- In criminal procedure, the compulsory joinder rule requires a prosecutor, in a single action, to bring all known charges against a defendant arising from a single criminal episode. This rule is meant to protect defendants from government harassment and being subjected to successive trials for offenses stemming from the same criminal episode. Additionally, the rule promotes judicial economy by avoiding repetitious litigation.
- Confrontation is when the defendant faces the witness and cross-examines them to object to the testimony in a criminalproceeding. The right to confrontation is granted by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” See:Right to confront witness
- The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
Federal (de facto) Grand Jury:
There is no defense counsel. The prosecutor runs the show and is under no obligation to show evidence the defendant is innocent.
- The affirmative defense of illegality, also known as the defense of illegality or the defense of unclean hands, is a legal doctrine that allows a defendant to argue that they should not be held liable or responsible for their actions because the plaintiff's claim is based on an illegal or wrongful act. In essence, it asserts that the plaintiff's own illegal conduct or wrongdoing prevents them from seeking legal remedies or relief.
- To assert the defense of illegality, the defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff's claim is directly linked to an illegal act or an unlawful transaction in which both parties were involved. The defendant must show that they were merely a participant in the illegal activity, and the plaintiff cannot benefit from their own wrongful conduct. Essentially, the defendant argues that the court should not assist the plaintiff in seeking a remedy because they are equally at fault or engaged in illegal behavior.
Inculpatory Evidence / Statements
- Inculpatory evidence is evidence that shows, or tends to show, a person's involvement in an act, or evidence that can establish guilt. In criminal law, the prosecution has a duty to provide all evidence to the defense, whether it favors the prosecution's case or the defendant’s case. Evidence that tends to show a person's innocence is considered exculpatory evidence.
Information (formal criminal charge)
- Because the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly creates a constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury, the information is used in federal criminal procedure only when a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty (often as part of a plea bargain) and waives the right to an indictment.
- General intent is an actual intent to perform some act, but without a wish for the consequences that result from that act. Depending on the offense alleged, both tort plaintiffs and criminal prosecutors may need to prove that the defendant acted with general intent.
- What three elements must exist to establish intent?
- In order to convict the defendant these elements of a crime must then be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Most crimes require that three essential elements be present: a criminal act (actus reus), criminal intent (mens rea), and a concurrence of the previous two elements
- The basic concepts underlying jurisdiction depend on the following simple rules:
- “If defendant enters plea of not guilty and is in court on day of trial, the court has jurisdiction over this person.” State v. Waters
- “Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant.” People v. Gabbay
- Points:
- 4.*Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record that the alleged defendant is subject to commercial law and or the Uniform Commercial Code in light of the following:
- 5.Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the defendant is subject to rules, codes and regulations. See…
- 6..Proof of jurisdiction appearing on the record, to force the alleged defendant into involuntary servitude. See…
- UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988)"For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion."
- 7.Proof of jurisdiction appearing on the record, that the alleged defendant is a person or other legal or commercial entity. See…
- 8.Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the alleged defendant is not sovereign. See…
- 9.Proof of jurisdiction appearing on the record, to force the alleged defendant or other sovereigns to be subject to statutes.
- The basic concepts underlying jurisdiction depend on the following simple rules:
- A type of defense that exempts the defendant from liability because the defendant's actions were justified. In other words, a defendant with a valid justification will not suffer the usual penalty for his actions because in the eyes of the court, the defendant could not have been asked to act any differently in this situation.
- Laches is a legal doctrine that serves as a defense against a claim when the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in asserting their rights has prejudiced the defendant.
- The defense of laches is based on the principle that plaintiffs should not be allowed to sit on their rights and delay taking legal action, especially if this delay has caused prejudice or harm to the defendant. It requires the defendant to demonstrate that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in pursuing their claim, and as a result, the defendant has suffered a disadvantage, such as the loss of evidence, the lapse of time, or a change in circumstances.
- A party is liable when they are held legally responsible for something. Unlike in criminal cases, where a defendant could be found guilty, a defendant in a civil case risks only liability.
- Strict Liability
- In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses.
- Known as the "license defense" or the "license affirmative defense." It is a legal doctrine used as a defense against a claim of trespass or infringement where the defendant argues that they had permission or a license to engage in the activity that is the subject of the lawsuit.
- MAXIMS ON JUDICIAL REASONING:
- • If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.
- MAXIMS ON JUDICIAL REASONING:
- In criminal law, if a defendant commits a single act that simultaneously fulfills the definition of two separate offenses, merger will occur. This means that the lesser of the two offenses will drop out, and the defendant will only be charged with the greater offense. This prevents double jeopardy problems from arising.
Miranda Rule / Miranda Warning
- The Supreme Court has been emphatic since the Magna Carta - 1215, that is, you cannot compel the defendant to aid the prosecutor in gaining conviction.
- a fundamental error prejudicial (unfair) to the defendant that cannot be cured by appropriate instructions to the jury (such as the inclusion of highly improper remarks in the prosecutor's summation)
- Either the plaintiff or the defendant may make this motion.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's or government's evidence, the lawyer will announce that the plaintiff or government rests. Then, when the jury leaves the courtroom, the defendant's lawyer in a civil case has the option of making a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that his or her client's liability has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial, the defendant's lawyer can ask for a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the government has failed to prove its case.
- In effect, in both kinds of cases, the lawyer asks the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant. The judge will either grant or deny the motion. If it is granted, the case is over and the defendant wins. If the motion is denied, as it usually is, the defense is given the opportunity to present its evidence.
- A motion for judgment n.o.v. (non-obstante veredicto) is made after the jury has delivered its verdict. A motion for judgment n.o.v. Is made by the defendant and asks the judge to reverse the verdict delivered by the jury. This is a rare motion that is only made if there are no reasonable grounds on which the jury could have reached its verdict, such as if the jury delivers a guilty verdict despite evidence that clearly proves that the defendant could not have committed the offense in question. Such a motion can only be used to overturn a verdict of guilty, which is why it is filed by the defense. For example, if a jury delivers a verdict of not guilty the prosecution cannot file a motion for judgment n.o.v. asking that the judge change that verdict to guilty.
- When a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense, the defendant may seek relief from his or her conviction by filing a motion in arrest of judgment. A motion in arrest of judgment suggests that the judgment has not been legally rendered. The motion may be oral or it may be in writing. Although the defendant may have a statutory right in some states to file the motion, the motion is seldom used and is rarely granted by a trial court.
- A motion in limine concerns what evidence can and cannot be presented to a jury in court. Instead of risking a jury being exposed to prejudicial evidence that may later be found to be inadmissible, a motion in limine ensures that such evidence is not presented to the jury in the first place. A motion in limine helps ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial, which is less assured if the jury is simply told to disregard evidence that it has already been exposed to. For example, in a criminal trial, the prosecution may mention a defendant’s previous conviction for an offense that has nothing to do with the offense currently being tried. While the defense may argue that mentioning that previous conviction should not be allowed because it is not relevant to the current case, the jury will nonetheless have already been told that such a conviction exists even if the judge sustains the objection and instructs the jury to disregard the information. A motion in limine ensures that that information is not presented to the jury in the first place. If either party violates the motion in limine then a mistrial may be declared.
- When making a motion to compel, the moving party is asking the judge to use the power of the court to essentially force another party to do something that he or she has so far refused to do. As noted above, motions to compel can be used during the discovery process to ensure that both parties have full access to the facts of the case. For example, if the plaintiff refuses to answer questions in a deposition, the defendant may file a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer those questions. If that motion is granted and the plaintiff still refuses to answer the questions then he or she may face contempt of court charges. Of course, motions to compel can also be used when the trial gets underway, such as if a witness refuses to answer a question while testifying, and they are not limited solely to the discovery process.
- Nihil dicit is Latin for "he says nothing"; a judgment for want of a plea. The name of a judgment which a judge may render against a defendant who failed to plead and failed to answer a plaintiff's declaration or complaint within the prescribed time limit. The defendant failed to say why the court should not issue the judgment against him. The failure to say constitutes an admission of the justice of the cause of action against the defendant; it does so more strongly than a mere default.
- § 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.
- A type of defense that mitigates (but does not erase) the amount of liability or damages assigned to the defendant.
- Peremptory Mandamus: Dates from the 17th century. An absolute and unqualified command to the defendant to do the act in question. It is issued when the defendant defaults on, or fails to show sufficient cause in answer to, an alternative mandamus.
- Pleadings provide notice to the defendant that a lawsuit has been instituted concerning a specific controversy or controversies. It also provides notice to the plaintiff of the defendant's intentions with regard to the suit.
Pleading from the Rules of Demurrer
- A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying "So what?" to the pleading.
Pre-trial Court Appearances in a Criminal Case
- The charge is read to the defendant, and penalties explained.
- The defendant is advised of his/her right to trial, and right to trial by jury if desired.
- The right to counsel (legal representation) is explained, and the judge or magistrate appoints a lawyer if the defendant requests one and is found to be indigent (too poor to afford a private lawyer).
- The defendant enters a plea. If counsel has been requested and appointed, or if the defendant indicates that private counsel will be retained, a plea of not guilty is entered. If the defendant enters a not guilty plea, a trial date will be set. If the defendant pleads guilty, either a date will be set for sentencing or the magistrate or judge will impose probation, fines or other sentences immediately. In some cases, the judge or magistrate may allow a defendant to plead nolo contendere, or no contest. In many jurisdictions a plea of no contest is equivalent to a guilty plea, except that the defendant does not directly admit guilt.
Pre-trial Procedures in Civil Cases
- See Propria Persona
- The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to representation by counsel. In 1975, the Supreme Court held that the structure of the Sixth Amendment necessarily implies that a defendant in a state criminal trial has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Thus, an unwilling defendant may not be compelled by the State to accept the assistance of a lawyer. A defendant's right to self-representation in federal criminal proceedings is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
- Any waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The Faretta court stated that "a defendant need not have the skill and experience of a lawyer, but should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and "the choice is made with eyes open." See Faretta. In 2004, the Court acknowledged that it has not prescribed any formula regarding the information a defendant must possess in order to make an intelligent choice. See Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004). According to the Court, determining whether a waiver of counsel is intelligent depends on "a range of case-specific factors, including the defendant's education or sophistication, the complex or easily grasped nature of the charge, and the stage of the proceeding." See Tovar.
- See Propria Persona
- Publici Juris (public right)
- If you file the action against the tortious actor in STATE court, then the action cannot be removed to FEDERAL court WITHOUT the defendant proving that federal property OF SOME KIND listed in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)is involved, and thus, that a “federal question” is at issue.
- The COURT which allows for removal from state to federal court itself is committing a tort WITHOUT enforcing the requirement of the defendant to prove “federal question” and FEDERAL PROPERTY is at issue. See 28 U.S.C. §1652, which is deliberately vague to protect UNLAWFUL removals and IDENTITY THEFT that they facilitate, as documented in:
- “The United States, we have held, cannot, as against the claim of an innocent party, hold his money which has gone into its treasury by means of the fraud of its agent. While here the money was taken through mistake without element of fraud, the unjust retention is immoral and amounts in law to a fraud of the taxpayer’s rights. What was said in the State Bank Case applies with equal force to this situation. ‘An action will lie whenever the defendant has received money which is the property of the plaintiff, and which the defendant is obligated by natural justice and equity to refund. The form of the indebtedness or the mode in which it was incurred is immaterial.“
- Relevant means, with regards to evidence, having some value or tendency to prove a matter of fact significant to the case. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 states that “evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Generally, relevant evidence is admissible, and a common objection to the admission of evidence is that it is irrelevant. An example of relevant evidence in a murder trial could be the DNA evidence that defendant possessed the murder weapon and testimonyfrom a witness who saw him at the scene around the time of the murder.
Res Judicata / Claim Preclusion
- Breaking Down the Concept
- Bar- a losing plaintiff cannot re-sue a winning defendant on the same cause of action
- Bar- a losing plaintiff cannot re-sue a winning defendant on the same cause of action
- example: Plaintiff P sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C, but P loses. P may not try for better luck by initiating a new lawsuit against D on C.
- Merger- a winning plaintiff cannot re-sue a losing defendant on the same cause of action
- Merger- a winning plaintiff cannot re-sue a losing defendant on the same cause of action
- example: Plaintiff P successfully sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C. P may not again sue D on C to try to recover more damages.
- Breaking Down the Concept
- The right covers a number of issues centered on the right of the accused or the defendant to refuse to comment or provide an answer when questioned, either prior to or during legal proceedings in a court of law. This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to remain silent when questioned. The right may include the provision that adverse inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury regarding the refusal by a defendant to answer questions before or during a trial, hearing or any other legal proceeding. This right constitutes only a small part of the defendant's rights as a whole.
Rule 3. Appeal as of Right—How Taken
Rule 12 (b) (6) Motion to dismiss
RULE 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER
- Federal Protections Against Self-Incrimination
- In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), the Supreme Court held that at trial, if the accused invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate, neither the prosecution nor the judge may tell the jury that that silence is evidence that the defendant is making an admission of guilt.
- Privilege Invoking:
- Defendant:
- A defendant invokes privilege by refusing to take the stand. Thus, the court cannot compel them to testify, and the prosecutor cannot take their failure to take the stand to the jury’s attention. If the prosecutor made a comment, it would trigger the harmless-error test.
- Defendant:
- Federal Protections Against Self-Incrimination
Special Appearance / Appearance De Bene Esse
- Special appearance is a tool defendants can use to challenge a court's jurisdiction over them. If a court does not have personal jurisdiction or there are other errors like for service of process, many states allow defendants to challenge the lawsuit without submitting to a court's jurisdiction.
- Long-Arm Statute is a legal provision that allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, provided that the prospective defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state.
- Any law that bars claims after some action by the defendant, even if the plaintiff has not yet been injured. Since the time period begins to run from the date of the defendant's action even if the injury is yet to occur, a statute of repose is generally more favorable to defendants than a statute of limitations.
- These can include criminal and civil citations, where a person may be charged with a criminal or non-criminal infraction without the need of a physical arrest, such as in cases of non-violent fineable violations, crimes that carry little incarceration time, or non-criminal acts such as speeding. Any crime that is punishable by the controlling law for more than six months of imprisonment must have some means for a jury trial. Some states, such as California, provide that all defendants are entitled to a jury trial (irrespective of the nature of their offenses). In any case, for summary criminal offenses in the United States, convictions can still show as such on a criminal record.
Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading
- (A) A defendant must serve an answer:
- (ii) if it has timely waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent, or within 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States.
United States vs. Terry (Terry vs. Ohio)
- As a good judge would do, we put our “neutral” hat on, lets not judge the policeman and let’s not judge the defendants. Lets get all the facts, then weigh the facts against the law, then let’s measure the law against the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and determine whether or not the law IN THIS CASE with these people in this circumstance applies to these three people. That’s what the court’s duty is and that’s all that it is.
Unreasonable Search and Seizure
- You can ask the judge to swear you (the defendant) and the prosecutor both in. The judge may say no, so say you need it for appellate review. Or, “Is it not true that for any evidence or facts to be presented to the court it has to be presented by a verifiable witness?” He’ll have to say, “Yes, that’s true.” So you say, “Before we start, in case I need it for appellate review, I need to be sworn in so that my testimony can be heard by the appeals because the only testimony the appellant court will hear is something verified under oath of affirmation and I wish the other side to do the same.” If it’s not verified under oath of affirmation you have nothing to appeal. This is a Federal Rule of Procedure 602.