Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
Summary judgment in the United States applies only in civil cases. It does not apply to criminal cases to obtain a pretrial judgment of conviction or acquittal, in part because a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. [4] Some federal and state-court judges publish general guidelines and sample summary judgment forms.
The report must be disclosed to the court, the defendant, defendant's counsel, and the attorney for the government at least 35 days before the sentencing. Local rules, adopted by the judges of each jurisdiction, supplement the federal rules and set a specific schedule for the disclosure of the initial draft of the presentence report to the ...
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide in rule 7(f) that "the court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars".. In U.S. state law, the bill of particulars was abolished in nearly all court systems in the 1940s and 1950s due to the widespread recognition that much of the information requested could be obtained more efficiently through the discovery process.
Court restrictions barring two pretrial criminal defendants from possessing guns were constitutional, a federal court ruled Monday. Firearm restrictions on defendants awaiting trial are ...
Court orders that prohibited two criminal defendants from possessing firearms while they awaited trial were constitutional because they were in line with past restrictions on firearms, a federal ...
The misconduct allegations against Willis first surfaced in a court filing by Mike Roman, a former high-ranking Trump aide who is now one of Trump’s 14 remaining co-defendants in Georgia.