Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, the motion to suppress stems from the exclusionary rule.As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Simmons v. United States: "In order to effectuate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, this Court long ago conferred upon defendants in federal prosecutions the right, upon motion and proof, to have excluded from trial evidence which ...
Examples of motions in limine would be that the attorney for the defendant may ask the judge to refuse to admit into evidence any personal information, or medical, criminal or financial records, using the legal grounds that these records are irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, or unduly prejudicial, and/or that their probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial result to the defendant, or ...
The New York Times argued that one page redacts information about the senator’s 2021 trip to Egypt in which he describes a statement by a "key State Department official" that shows he was acting ...
A "motion to dismiss" asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy.As an example, a claim that the defendant failed to greet the plaintiff while passing the latter on the street, insofar as no legal duty to do so may exist, would be dismissed for failure to state a valid claim: the court must assume the truth of the factual ...
Jul. 18—LIMA — A video of the police interview of a Mansfield suspect charged in connection with a stabbing in Lima in March was submitted to Allen County Common Pleas Court Judge Terri ...
Case history; Prior: Franks v. State, 373 A.2d 578 (Del. 1977): Subsequent: Franks v. State, 398 A.2d 783 (Del. 1979): Holding; Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
For example, where the defendant affirmatively chooses to make a broad statement denying any narcotics activity, he may not use the exclusionary rule as a shield against attacks on his credibility. [34] However, the government also may not attempt to “smuggle in” excluded evidence on cross-examination by asking broad questions. [34]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us