Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided an appellant who was the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeals.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California (in case citations, C.D. Cal.; commonly referred to as the CDCA or CACD) is a federal trial court that serves over 19 million people in Southern and Central California, making it the most populous federal judicial district. [1] The district was created on September 18, 1966.
In January 2018, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Humphrey, holding that California’s money bail system violated due process and equal protection. [4] The ruling required trial court judges to consider a defendant’s ability to pay as well as non-monetary options for release when determining a bail amount ...
The movement to eradicate bail from America’s justice system will face a crucial test Nov. 3, when California voters will decide whether to end the centuries-old practice of trading money for ...
The court in many jurisdictions, especially states that as of 2012 prohibited surety bail bondsmen – Oregon, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky and Maine [29] – may demand a certain amount of the total bail (typically 10%) be given to the court, which is known as surety on the bond and unlike with bail bondsmen, is returned if the ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us