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]
In Siew Soon Hah v Wang Tong Hong [1973] AC 837, the Privy Council held that there was an "equity or equitable estoppel protecting the defendant in his occupation for 30 years". In Bank Negara Indonesia v Philip Foallm (1973) 2 Malaya Law Journal the Privy Council held that, despite the fact that he had no protection under the Rent Acts, he had ...
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.
The defendant was dead and could not be further prosecuted and at the time of the trip [Lewin] was not a witness nor a party to any pending litigation," his attorney, Brian Panish, said in an e-mail.
Case history; Prior: On Writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Holding; Where a mistrial was granted with the defendant's consent in the absence of bad faith on part of the prosecution or the judge, there is no violation of double jeopardy when the defendant is put on retrial.
The defendant convicted of capital murder in the death of a Fort Worth police officer was sentenced to life in prison without parole Wednesday, hours after taking the witness stand in the ...
The Massachusetts mom charged with strangling her three kids with exercise bands will undergo a psychiatric exam after her lawyers said they are preparing to mount an insanity defense.. Plymouth ...
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.