Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. [1]
The size of the grand jury and the number of grand jurors required to issue an indictment varies among the states and even, at times, within a single state. [19] A supermajority of jurors, such as two-third or three-fourths, is usually needed to recommend an indictment or criminal charge. [6]
The testimony of two witnesses is equal in its force to the testimony of three or more witnesses. Thus if two witnesses say an event occurred, and one hundred witnesses say it did not occur, the groups of witnesses are considered to contradict one another, but no more weight is given to the larger group; other evidence is needed to reach a ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Indeed, in Texas, lawyers were so aggressively using objections to indirectly coach their witnesses on the record that all objections outside four narrow categories are now prohibited and making such prohibited objections waives all objections to the question or answer at issue.
[66] [verification needed] The desire for English law was a driver for the division in 1791 of Quebec, as it was then known, at the Ottawa river into Upper Canada and Lower Canada, as each of the two groups (French and English) desired to maintain their traditions. In point of fact, the second law passed in Upper Canada relates to (petit) jury ...
Of course, no two witnesses are exactly the same, and even the same witness will not express testimony in exactly the same way twice, so this would be difficult to prove. It is the role of the judge, not the jury, to determine what law applies to a particular set of facts.
A will is required to be in writing with two witnesses. Wills that do not meet these conditions can still be judged to be legally valid. In 2013, a court ruled that a DVD labeled "my will" was legally binding; [ 67 ] in 2017, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that an unsent text message was a valid will.