Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
New Jersey: "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." This rule promoted the historic concerns of the jury-trial requirement — to subject all accusations against a criminal defendant to ...
Bifurcation is a judge's ability in law to divide a trial into two parts so as to render a judgment on a set of legal issues without looking at all aspects. Frequently, civil cases are bifurcated into separate liability and damages proceedings. [1] Criminal trials are also often bifurcated into guilt and sentencing phases, especially in capital ...
Legal experts say that in a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show from "a preponderance of the evidence" that they acted lawfully, whereas in a trial by jury the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who must show "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a much higher standard than required for establishing "a ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: United States v. Erlinger, 77 F.4th 617 (7th Cir. 2023).: Questions presented; Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant's prior convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another," as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act ...
Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. [1] It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty ...
In the trial that started on Monday, Arm sought to portray Qualcomm's moves as a first-of-its-kind flouting of standard contractual terms the British company had used successfully for decades and ...
R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the legal basis of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal law.Cory J outlined several core principles of the reasonable doubt standard and provided a list of points that must be explained to a jury when they are to consider the standard.
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6–3 that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but that states can define who has an intellectual disability.