Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Nolle prosequi, [a] abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". [3] [4] It is a type of prosecutorial discretion in common law, used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; [5] it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.
A "motion for nolle prosequi" ("not prosecuting") is a motion by a prosecutor or other plaintiff to drop legal charges. n. n. Latin for "we do not wish to prosecute," which is a declaration made to the judge by a prosecutor in a criminal case (or by a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit) either before or during trial, meaning the case against the ...
nolle prosequi: not to prosecute A statement from the prosecution that they are voluntarily discontinuing (or will not initiate) prosecution of a matter. / ˈ n ɒ l i ˈ p r ɒ s ɪ k w aɪ / nolo contendere: I do not wish to argue A type of plea whereby the defendant neither admits nor denies the charge. Commonly interpreted as "No contest ...
Nolle prosequi – Latin for “not wish to prosecute – is not an acquittal. Because of that, there is no double jeopardy involved, and the charges could be resubmitted later.
Judge Joseph Teefy of Dinwiddie Circuit Court on Sunday approved the prosecutor's motion to nolle prosequi — or effectively drop for now — the case against five sheriff's deputies, according ...
“Specifically, we address whether a dismissal of a case by nolle prosequi allows the State to bring a second prosecution when the dismissal was entered as part of an agreement with the defendant ...
The effect of granting this motion meant that Klopfer was not completely free of charges. When a case is normally halted on a prosecutor's motion for nolle prosequi, a judge's approval is required to restart proceedings. In North Carolina at the time, a court granting a nolle prosequi with leave motion implicitly granted this permission ahead ...
Smith LJ posed the question as to who can enter a nolle prosequi and stated that the attorney general (or their fiat) [9] were "supreme in that matter". [2] The judgment in this appeal makes it clear that the attorney general's unique power to stop legal proceedings is not reviewable by the courts. [3]