Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, a conviction is the determination by a court of law that a defendant is guilty of a crime. [1] A conviction may follow a guilty plea that is accepted by the court, a jury trial in which a verdict of guilty is delivered, or a trial by judge in which the defendant is found guilty. The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal (that
A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate effects as a plea of guilty, but may have different residual effects or consequences in future actions. For instance, a conviction arising from a nolo contendere plea is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea in the same case, and can be considered as an aggravating factor in future criminal actions.
In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, [1] an Alford guilty plea, [2] [3] [4] and the Alford doctrine, [5] [6] [7] is a guilty plea in criminal court, [8] [9] [10] whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence.
The California Supreme Court has overturned a Central Valley woman's murder conviction in the 2018 killing of her 2-month-old son, ruling that the law often holds victims of domestic violence to ...
An absolute discharge is a lesser sentence imposed by a court in which no penalty is imposed at all. Exceptionally, however, a court occasionally grants an absolute discharge for a very serious offence when presented with extenuating circumstances (the signalman in the Thirsk rail crash, who was found guilty of manslaughter, is an example ...
Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Pham, lower courts extended its applicability to other collateral consequences. For example, courts have held that stigma or the loss of employment following a conviction to be collateral consequences that can be taken into account during sentencing.
The first conviction was set aside by an Oklahoma court which said his defense was inadequate. As with his first trial, his 2004 conviction depended heavily on the testimony of Justin Sneed, the ...
Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. [1] It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty ...