Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A group of former Japanese World War II soldiers, interned in Sugamo Prison as Class B and C war criminals, memorise their past.Yamashita had shot an Indonesian civilian by command of his superior Hamada and, after violent interrogations by U.S. military personnel following his arrest, was blamed by Hamada for acting without instructions at his trial.
Hunter Biden held a 10% stake in BHR Partners at least through part of his father’s first year as president and the terms of his divestment remain murky. Hunter says he won’t take clemency ...
Arrested trying to fly supplies to orphanage in Northern Mozambique and was held without charges or bail. March 15, 2023 provisionally released but forbidden from leaving country. [2] Marcel Malanga 19 May 2024 In detention: 218 Involvement in the 2024 DRC coup attempt [3] Tyler Thompson 19 May 2024 In detention: 218 Involvement in the 2024 DRC ...
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Virtually all individuals who are arbitrarily arrested are given no explanation as to why they are being arrested, and they are not shown any arrest warrant. [2] Depending on the social context, many or the vast majority of arbitrarily arrested individuals may be held incommunicado and their whereabouts can be concealed from their family, associates, the public population and open trial courts.
Florida, 398 U.S. 30 (1970) it held the same applied to defendants held by authorities at another location in the same state. It did not, however, define "speedy" until the case of Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 (1972), setting out a four-part test to be used to judge if a delay was prejudicial or not. [ 1 ]
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. [1]