Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an Oklahoma court decision holding that a defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise by the second highest legal standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence, ruling that to be unconstitutional. [1]
Several statutes, mostly codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, provide for federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States.Federal prosecutions of public corruption under the Hobbs Act (enacted 1934), the mail and wire fraud statutes (enacted 1872), including the honest services fraud provision, the Travel Act (enacted 1961), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt ...
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.
For example, the currently prevailing approach employed by many law enforcement agencies to detect companies involved in potential cases of fraud consists in receiving circumstantial evidence or complaints from whistleblowers. [2] As a result, a large number of fraud cases remain undetected and unprosecuted.
NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, which were designed to prohibit group actions that restrained open competition and trade.
The rule, which the OSSAA has presented as an effort to achieve competitive balance, elevates private schools to higher athletic classifications based on sustained success. The schools filed suit ...
In general, the purpose of rules of evidence is to regulate the evidence that the jury may use to reach a verdict. Historically, the rules of evidence reflected a marked distrust of jurors. [9] [10] The Federal Rules of Evidence strive to eliminate this distrust, and encourage admitting evidence in close cases. Even so, there are some rules ...
Furthermore, in cases of a hit-and-run in Oklahoma, the at-fault driver may be subject to various criminal penalties. The severity of these consequences can vary depending on the specifics of the ...