Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate effects as a plea of guilty, but may have different residual effects or consequences in future actions. For instance, a conviction arising from a nolo contendere plea is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea in the same case, and can be considered as an aggravating factor in future criminal actions.
In law, a conviction is the determination by a court of law that a defendant is guilty of a crime. [1] A conviction may follow a guilty plea that is accepted by the court, a jury trial in which a verdict of guilty is delivered, or a trial by judge in which the defendant is found guilty. The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal (that
An absolute discharge is an unconditional discharge whereby the court finds that a crime has technically been committed but that any punishment of the defendant would be inappropriate and the case is closed. In some jurisdictions, an absolute discharge means there is no conviction on the defendant's record, despite the plea of the defendant.
In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, [1] an Alford guilty plea, [2] [3] [4] and the Alford doctrine, [5] [6] [7] is a guilty plea in criminal court, [8] [9] [10] whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence.
The swift conviction of Donald Trump’s former trade adviser Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress sent two warnings to the multiple co-defendants in the ex-president’s approaching criminal ...
In a 1985 judgement in the case Colozza v Italy, the European Court of Human Rights stressed that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to take part in the hearings. This entitlement is based on the right to a fair trial and the right to a defence, both of which are required by the convention (articles 6(1) and 6(3)).
Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. [1] It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty ...
That was a common tactic in cases involving treason or sedition. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed, and the first jury was imprisoned or fined.