18
I'm curious as to how the US legal system determines who should
present evidence and how much evidence is required by them to prove
one side of an argument against a counterargument.
In General
In both criminal and civil cases in common law legal systems (legal systems derived from the English legal system, basically, the U.S., U.K., Ireland, Canada, ...
18
That's the entire point of a summary proceeding.
You're allegedly found committing an offence, that isn't worth the court's time to hear but nevertheless requires some penalty.
The only way to "unambiguously deny liability" is by requesting a hearing and denying liability in the notice of this. The court doesn't care what you say to everybody else, it ...
14
If I unambiguously deny liability but do not ask for a hearing can the informant refer the mater to the district court for unpaid fines without a hearing having taken place?
Yes, but not before they serve you with a reminder notice. Once they have done this, they may "provide particulars" of it to the Ministry of Justice (subsection 3), from which point, ...
9
Trials in German criminal cases are generally open to the public (subject to exceptions similar to those in the U.S.) and there is a presumption of innocence until proof beyond a reasonable doubt establishes otherwise in its criminal justice system. The authority for this and the history of this are explored below.
In a criminal case in Germany, according ...
8
Under US law, the prosecution has the obligation to prove all of the elements of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the exact explanation in the jury instructions varies from state to state, in aid of avoiding the inference that the defense has an obligation to create a doubt). The prosecution may have the advantage that the camera evidence has already ...
6
The General Rule: The Prosecutor And Not The Crime Victim Decides
You are correct that this is mostly wrong.
Pressing charges is something that happens. But, this simply consists of making a report to law enforcement about an incident and asking that the prosecutor either directly, or indirectly through a request directed to the law enforcement officer to ...
5
Typically anything in the car that you can see from looking through your windows is "plain view" and the officer is allowed to "search" from plain view. You don't need to be anywhere near the car for him to do this if it's in public space. Unfortunately, once he becomes aware of a possible crime, he has greater search capability (you should not tell him ...
5
Police officers can lie to you
He asked to search your car. He’s allowed to do this.
You said no. You’re allowed to do this.
He lied to you when he said he would get the K9 to search the car - this would not be legal. But he’s allowed to tell you lies.
You made an admission of criminal activity. He now has probable cause to search.
He legally searched, ...
5
In the U.S., pretty much the only circumstance in which a proceeding like the one you contemplate could occur without the criminal defendant present physically in the courtroom would be one where the criminal defendant was physically present when the trial started (say on the morning of day 1) and then failed to return after a break in the proceedings ...
4
If someone was charged with 15 counts of a crime but was only indicted
on 2 counts, can the prosecutor introduce evidence at sentencing of
charges that the person was not indicted on?
In federal court, yes. This has been the case since Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) which held that evidence such as counts and conduct upon which the defendant ...
4
You must be careful with the term Code Napoleon.
In general it is an alternative name for the code civil (original name code civil des Français 1804) and is one of the 5 books of law.
It was introduced in Westphalia in 1808 and used in french domenated areas until it was replaced by the Bürgerlichgesetzbuch in 1901.
What you are talking about (I assume) ...
4
Almost none of this is written down anywhere in official court rules but there are some widely adopted standards for this practice.
Most courts require that only one lawyer be in charge of speaking at any given stage of the trial. But, it wouldn't be unusual, for example, for one lawyer to question most of the witnesses and for a different lawyer who is ...
3
The witness would not be regarded as dishonest - they would be viewed as having been tricked. The defendant and defence team would be viewed as dishonest, and could be considered to have fabricated evidence.
The defendant could be regarded as not having attended their trial, and the defence lawyers (since you're spelling "defence" the same way as I do I'll ...
3
Assuming the person turns themselves in, but is not acquitted of the
charges against them after talking with the police, they then must go
through the process of being charged.
For what it is worth, police might not pursue charges or might dismiss the charges, but an acquittal is a legal term of art that happens only after a judge or jury makes a ruling ...
3
In general, you do not have civil recourse against the government for (lawful) legal process that you are the victim of. "Counterclaim" would only be applicable when A sues B, and B makes a counterclaim against A – the police don't sue you, they arrest you, and the prosecutor prosecutes you (or decides not to).
If the police beat you up, you could sue them ...
3
Can defense request findings of fact before resting? Is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime? If so: How?
No, no and not applicable.
A verdict is a singular declaration by the jury (or judge) that the state has or ...
3
Collateral estoppel is inapplicable in both scenarios.
The first scenario leaves no room for issues of collateral estoppel. Whether or not charges for "no-registration" proceed would strictly depend on whether the statute sanctions an offender's mere intent not to register his or her new address.
If the elements of the claim require both (1) actual change ...
3
Defendants cannot switcheroo whenever they want. There are good reasons why this is almost never done.
The lawyer in any of these scenarios is violating an ethical duty of candor to the tribunal, if it is done without court permission (which is unlikely to be granted), even if the client suggested or insisted upon the idea. The lawyer would be responsible ...
3
Generally speaking, ex parte communications with a judge (i.e. communications to which all parties to a case are not notified) are prohibited, both by law and as a matter of judicial and attorney ethics, subject to some narrow exceptions (e.g. applications for arrest warrants prior to the arrest warrant being carried out).
Generally speaking, communications ...
2
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the trier of fact (jury, or judge if a jury has been waived). How much proof is required to do this is pretty much up to the trier of fact.
If in your hypothetical buss case, the prosecutor presented the image and said that this ...
2
It’s against the law
For example, form the New South Wales Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015
24 A barrister must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court.
Barristers who break the law become ex-barristers.
2
It's happened before in real life.
Here is a 1994 article describing an Illinois criminal trial where defense counsel pulled the old switcheroo and sat a different person with him at the defense table instead of the defendant. The defendant, instead, sat somewhere else in the courtroom.
After a witness misidentified the perp as the person at the defense ...
2
I recall this tactic being used in a Perry Mason novel. But even with the flexibility with the law those books had, Mason had the defendant in court although not at the usual place, and had secured the permission of the Judge in advance for this.
I think that deceiving the Court, even briefly and for arguably legitimate reasons, will not go well. Deceiving ...
2
A person cannot be arrested for a misdemeanor by a police officer without a warrant unless the officer has probable cause that a person committed a misdemeanor in their presence. "Probable cause" is when the facts objectively support a belief that the person has committed a crime. If there is a total lack of evidence, then there is no probable cause or even ...
1
IANAL, but I have some experience. You are screwed. Even if you are acquitted of the charges, you will have spent so much on lawyers, court, and other things that you will effectively have been punished.
You need to decide whether you want to fight this or not. If you choose not to fight this, you will limit your losses.
If you fight this, you need to ...
1
No, the defence must be offered at trial
And, typically, the NGRI plea must be entered when the defendant pleas - courts do not generally allow a change of plea.
Your proposed strategy doesn’t suffer from the plea. NGRI is an affirmative defence - the state still needs to prove their case, if they don’t the correct verdict is not guilty. The judge will ...
1
I assume that the person alleges insanity at the time of the crime, and not incompetence to stand trial. The best but dim hope would be to introduce evidence as a mitigating factor for sentencing – this would not avoid a conviction, but you might think it could reduce the penalty. Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 says that you cannot (automatically) introduce ...
1
USA answer, may be similar for Common Law Jurisdictions in General:
Generally no, there is no method for this to be practical. There is trial in absentia which is when the defendant does not show up for a scheduled trial but there is sufficient evidence that it does not matter (remember, the defense does not need to testify at all or call witnesses at all)....
1
Absent newly enacted law in response to the end of the separate sovereigns doctrine, the first case to which jeopardy attaches (generally speaking when a jury is sworn and the first item of evidence is presented to it) would bar subsequent prosecutions, without regard to whether it arose in state or federal court. It would be a race to the court house rule.
...
1
In terms of court structure, there are three levels of criminal trial courts in France, police court, which handles misdemeanors in a local area (with a single judge), correctional court similar to U.S. courts of general jurisdiction which handled most felonies in a local area (with three or one judges and no jury), and the Assize court, for which this is ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
