Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (2016), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of a federal statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) states that a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is subject to a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence if they have "a prior conviction...under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual ...
Florida, a case concerning Florida woman Natoya Cunningham who was sentenced to eight years in prison after a six-person jury found her guilty of aggravated battery and retaliation against an ...
Two years after former University of Miami football standout Roscoe Parrish was accused of stalking and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend, prosecutors have dropped the criminal case against him.
Cyberstalking in conjunction with a credible threat is also considered aggravated stalking. [31] In 2008, Florida passed the "Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up For All Students Act" in response to the suicide of 15-year-old Jeffrey Johnston, who had suffered cyberbullying over a long period of time. [32]
On September 26, 2013, an appellate court ordered a new trial, finding that the jury instructions in Alexander's trial impermissibly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] Alexander was released on bail on November 27, 2013 [ 11 ] and required to stay under house arrest . [ 12 ]
In another California study, jury instructions were again simplified to make them easier for jurors to understand. The courts moved cautiously because, although verdicts are rarely overturned due to jury instructions in civil court, this is not the case in criminal court. For example, the old instructions on burden of proof in civil cases read: [3]
The 36-year-old Louisiana man is being charged with a criminal mischief first-degree misdemeanor. FDLE: 2nd Orlando neo-Nazi Demonstrator arrested by @AlachuaSheriff on an FDLE warrant.
The Williams Rule is based on the holding in the Florida state case of Williams v. State [1] in which relevant evidence of collateral crimes is admissible at jury trial when it does not go to prove the "bad character" or "criminal propensity" of the defendant but is used to show motive, intent, knowledge, modus operandi, or lack of mistake.