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.
Glanville denied the motion [64] and the trial was paused on July 1 until a higher court ruled on the recusal. [65] Two weeks later, Glanville was recused and the trial resumed under the direction of Shukura L. Ingram. [66] [11] Ingram recused herself three days later, citing "an improper relationship between a defendant and one of her former ...
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, [15] meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge, both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Nine of the defendants, including the rapper Gunna, accepted plea deals before the trial began, and four more pleaded guilty during the trial, in October. Charges against 12 others remain pending ...
The trial has spanned years, with testimony only beginning in November 2023. The original case alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy among 28 co-defendants, including Young Thug, charged as being ...
The trial was scheduled months before Mr Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. ... “If the defendant pleads not guilty to the crime the court will need to arrange a trial to receive ...
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.
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.