Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 1966, Congress enacted the Bail Reform Act, which expanded the bail rights of federal criminal defendants by giving non-capital defendants a statutory right to be released pending trial, on their personal recognizance or on personal bond, unless a judicial officer determined that such incentives would not adequately assure the defendant's appearance at trial.
The life cycle of federal supervision for a defendant. United States federal probation and supervised release are imposed at sentencing. The difference between probation and supervised release is that the former is imposed as a substitute for imprisonment, [1] or in addition to home detention, [2] while the latter is imposed in addition to imprisonment.
However, pre-trial detention requires a lower threshold such as "reasonable suspicion". [58] In most countries, the prosecution only need to prove that the charges are well-founded and that there is a sufficient threat that the defendant will commit another crime or undermine the judicial process.
A federal judge has ordered Oregon counties to release criminal defendants from jail if they aren’t appointed an attorney within a week of their first court appearance. The state is one of many ...
For now, 24-year-old Darryn Lake remains locked up at the Marion County Jail pending the new trial. His attorney has asked the judge to set bail. His attorney has asked the judge to set bail.
Court bail may be offered to secure the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. [1] In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention.
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that Oregon defendants must be released from jail after seven days if they don’t have a defense attorney. In its decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit ...
The defendant, a first offender and a young man of reputable back ground, had pleaded guilty to embezzling $4,700 by falsifying entries in the books of a Toledo bank. He had made full restitution and the bank's officers did not wish to prosecute. The Government moved that Judge Killits' order be vacated as being "beyond the powers of the court."