31

New York Criminal Procedure - Article 160.6 states, Upon the termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in favor of such person, as defined in subdivision two of section 160.5 of this chapter, the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the accused shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied ...


19

First, be sure you are talking about actual expungement and not just having your record sealed. The terms “expungement” and “sealing” are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same and there are some very important differences. “Sealing” is when the general public no longer possesses the right to search for your criminal records in a background ...


13

Yes, you can legally say you were not arrested. The exception is law enforcement and maybe some federal jobs that I do not know about. Employers are not allowed to ask about arrests. The exception is that they can ask about open arrests - arrests that have not resulted in a disposition. Employers can ask if you have been convicted of a crime. You are only ...


5

The prosecutor may not offer evidence of you being merely arrested or issued a ticket. This answer is based on the federal rules of evidence and depending on how similar they are to the Texas rules you may or may not prevail. To address some additional concerns, let's delve into a segment on the rules and procedure in a courtroom. Your past criminal record ...


5

One wouldn't be able to make a claim about a driving record without it being testimony. Testimony will be challenged during cross examination. The prosecutor won't be able to bring up prior bad acts (such as previous speeding tickets) but will most certainly be allowed to rebut any claim of no prior bad acts made by a defendant. When the defendant claims a ...


4

This is an example of an affirmative defense In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove each and every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the law provides an exception that amounts to if you do X you commit a crime unless Y, the defense has to prove (to a lower burden) that Y happened. An affirmative defense only kicks in if the ...


3

To what standard does the evidence need to be convincing so that the judge is satisfied that a jury could “reasonably convict” the defendant? The High Court expanded on the answer to this question in Mitchell, the decision you cited, at [32]: [In R v Kim [2010] NZCA 106] the Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of “insufficient to justify a trial” in ...


2

The main source of liability would be "for injuries caused by the act 'of things that he has under his guard'" (this article). As stated in Art. 1383. of the 1804 Civil Code, "Everyone is liable for the injury he has caused not only by his act, but also by his negligence or imprudence". Then the question is whether the teacher was negligent in allowing a ...


2

Yes, the doctrine that costs follow the event. That is, you lose, you pay the costs for the winner. Also, if a plaintiff’s suit has no prospect of success, the defendant can file a motion for summary judgement on that basis. Finally, if a plaintiff persistently lodges vexatious claims a court may declare them a vexatious litigant- they then need the court’...


1

If there is a history of this the plaintiff can be declared a vexatious litigant


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible