Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, prejudice differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings. Two of the most common applications of the word are as part of the terms with prejudice and without ...
Perez, [3] of whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, there can be a new trial after a mistrial has been declared without the defendant's request or consent depends on whether there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. A motion by the defendant for mistrial is ordinarily assumed ...
For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not, as was decided by the Supreme Court in United States v. Perez. [17]
What is a mistrial? There are two common ways a mistrial takes place. When a jury is unable to reach a verdict after numerous attempts (a "hung jury") then a mistrial results, as in the case of Meade.
Wingo (1972), the Supreme Court developed a four-part test that considers the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice to the defendant. A violation of the Speedy Trial Clause is cause for dismissal with prejudice of a criminal case. Within these parameters, it ...
A judge on Wednesday declared a mistrial in the case of Timothy Williams, who is accused of the 1984 murder of Wendy Jerome. Williams was linked to the murder by familial DNA. State Supreme Court ...
Lyle and Erik Menendez are serving life without parole for the shotgun murders of their parents 35 years ago. ... After their first trial ended in a mistrial, a jury found the brothers guilty in ...
The People of the State of California v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 CAL. 4TH 497, 917 P.2D 628 (Cal. 1996), was a landmark case in the state of California that gave California Superior Court judges the ability to dismiss a criminal defendant's "strike prior" pursuant to the California Three-strikes law, thereby avoiding a 25-to-life minimum sentence.