Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Courts will lend a defendant all practicable help in securing evidence necessary for a defense, if it is sought in a timely manner. It is usual to grant a continuance if there is a problem in gathering evidence or the serving of subpoenas upon witnesses, if the defendant is not at fault for the delay. (See Powell v. Alabama) [6]
Angelo Gambiglioni, De re iudicata, 1579 Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for judged matter, [1] and refers to either of two concepts in common law civil procedure: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties.
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the removal of an unruly criminal defendant during his trial. In its decision, the court ruled that a trial judge may remove a stubbornly defiant defendant from the courtroom, following a warning from the judge that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues.
In a statement to USA TODAY, Morrissey said, "In October 2023 the prosecution team became aware that Mr. Baldwin intended to file a retaliatory civil lawsuit. We look forward to our day in court."
Sauer responded that the appeals court had held in a previous case that the fraud statute only applies when the defendant has shown a capacity or tendency to deceive, or where there was "an ...
Under such a disposition, the charge is held in abeyance ("continued") without any verdict ("without a finding"). The defendant is on probation for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years at the most; if the defendant does not get into further legal trouble, the charge is dismissed, and the defendant has no criminal record.
[4] Internet cases with an out-of-state defendant will often require the plaintiff to assert specific personal jurisdiction. Where a civil action has been brought based on a defendant's Internet activities, courts have generally declined to assert personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of web advertising.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no ...