Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court's opinion went on to hold that criminal defendants, in state courts, have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves. However, the right to represent oneself is not absolute. Courts have the authority and duty to determine whether a particular individual is capable of representing himself or herself. In Godinez v.
"In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor's choice." [1] Wyoming: Const Art 1 § 8 "All courts shall be open and every person for an injury done to person, reputation or property shall have justice administered without sale, denial, or delay." [1] Wyoming
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment.
La Voie, Supreme Court of Colorado, 395 P.2d 1001 (1964), The court wrote, "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is imminent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life when ...
In a criminal case, there is usually an arraignment or some other kind of appearance before the defendant comes to court. The pleading in the criminal case, which is entered on the record in open court, is usually either guilty or not guilty. Generally, speaking in private, civil cases there is no plea entered of guilt or innocence.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) keeps your money safe from creditors and bankruptcy court, as long as you have a qualified account. Qualified plans include pensions ...
At the International Court of Justice, the term "separate opinion" is used and judges can also add declarations to the judgment. The term concurring opinion is used at the Supreme Court of the United States. The European Court of Human Rights uses the term concurring opinion and calls both concurring and dissenting opinions separate opinions ...