22

Identifying someone as a criminal without charging them and thereby giving them an opportunity to clear their names has due process implications, largely because of the associated reputational damage. DOJ policy therefore advises against naming unindicted co-conspirators: Ordinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in ...


10

I believe you are using rule of law when you mean due process. The former refers to equality before the law and the subjugation of executive government to the law while the latter refers accepted measures of justice and fairness in the administration of the law and, in the United States, to the supremacy of the judiciary over the legislature (the situation ...


8

The phrase "reasonable doubt" was formed hundreds of years ago, and does not hold any mathematical or probabilistic meaning. It is for each individual juror to decide for themselves what constitutes "reasonable doubt", and whether the evidence presented to them has crossed that threshold. EDIT for extra clarity: As stated above, the definition of "...


7

This can be effected without evidence or trial or a right to an appeal in front of an objective party. Not so. If a person is charged with a crime for violating such a code, (or refusing to leave when ordered under such a code) they could defend on the grounds that it is unreasonable, unauthorized, or violates that person's constitutional or statutory ...


7

In the United States who has the authority and what is the procedure to determine if conduct by an individual is "illegal"? You are conflating several different ideas here, which is probably the source of your persistent confusion. 1) Actions are legal or not Illegal: Not authorized by law; Illicit ; unlawful; contrary to law The law sets out certain ...


7

Civil forfeiture typically pits the government against property, not the government against an individual, and in the US (also anywhere else), only people have rights: property has no rights. The first relevant instance to reach the Supreme Court was an early case, The Palmyra (25 US 1), where a ship was confiscated because it had been used in privateering ...


4

The first method of dispute resolution is called negotiation. This is a technique where the parties involved follow a process known as talking to each other to see if they can agree on a resolution. What makes this enforceable is a thing called goodwill. If they cannot agree or if there is insufficient goodwill people can (in some circumstances) ask a court ...


4

There are two primary parts to the question. The first is, is it a violation of the due process clauses to deprive you of property or liberty without following the law: the answer is, it is. If you did not violate any law, you cannot legally be punished. That does not mean that you understand the law correctly, e.g. you may not be aware that non-payment of ...


3

They never legally existed According to True West magazine, no government ever issued a wanted poster containing the phrase “dead or alive”. The iconic posters were promulgated by private organisations railroads, Wells Fargo, Pinkerton etc. No doubt, if challenged, those organisations would argue that they were simply stating the terms under which the ...


3

Yes, there is legal precedent against this that would only apply to a government employee. First, let's discuss the private sector. In this case, you are a private employee that comes to your place of work and accuses you of "stealing the cookies from the cookie jar" which is a serious criminal offense. They wish to talk and your boss is in the room. You ...


3

In the US the jury is the fact-finder, while the judge is responsible for decisions purely related to the law. The defendant cannot be convicted unless the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Presumably the OP's probability P(A) is the probability the defendant is guilty given all information available to some ill-...


3

This an instance of the general rule ignorantia legis neminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the municipal ordinances state that a particular place does not allow parking at certain times, then if you park there you have violated the law and will get ticketed. There is no requirement that there be signs prominently posted saying that you must ...


3

Regarding the second part of your question: The 7th Amendment does not apply in state court, so any right to a jury trial there would depend upon the constitution of the State of Texas (specifically Article I, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution). This is the case because the Bill of Rights applies by its terms only to the federal government. Under the ...


2

In a common law jurisdiction in the circumstances you describe you cannot be charged with a crime; much less proved guilty of it. In Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission; Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales (Inspector Childs) [2010] HCA 1 (3 February 2010) the High Court said: The common law requires that a defendant ...


2

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 17.42, Personal Bond Office, is the Texas law that allows a "personal bond fee" to be collected. It defines the bond fee as the greater of $20 or 3% of the amount of the bail. The U.S. Supreme Court in Schilb v. Kuebel held that administrative fees charged to both innocent and guilty were constitutional and did not impose a ...


2

What factors might a court consider in these circumstances? Is it true that anyone can just walk up and file a document in any case, with no requirement to identify themselves? If nobody admits to filing a document, it is likely that the court would grant a motion to strike the document and disregard it (revising a past ruling if the issue was raised ...


2

In most cases, the failure to use Robert's Rules of Order will not be a violation of due process. To be a violation, (1) due process must be required; and either (2) the procedure must fail to satisfy the elements of due process; or (3) the procedure must be inadequate. Was due process required? As a threshold matter, the Fifth Amendment provides due-...


2

There are limits to the principle of ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). Secret law is unjust law. In the US, law must be sufficiently clear and specific or it will be held to be unconstitutional for vagueness as a violation of Due process under the 5th or 14th amendments to the US Federal constitution. As the SCOTUS ...


2

This is a matter that varies by jurisdiction. While it is true that in general a law is binding whether a person has been informed of it or not, in many jurisdictions, traffic and parking laws in particular are not enforceable unless they are properly posted, with signs of the size and style specified by statute. For example, in the US state of NJ (where I ...


1

There is a tort of malicious prosecution which could be relevant: if the prosecutor knowingly and with malicious intent charges a person. The prosecutor has to have probable cause for the charge, meaning that a reasonable person would believe that the accused committed the crime. A prosecutor cannot maliciously prosecute a person. Acting to obtain a guilty ...


1

My city in Ohio has this same parking ordinance. I got a ticket the first time I parked on the street after having lived here about 10 years. I asked at city hall why there were no signs and they told me that signs were posted at all major arteries coming into the city. Apparently that is legally sufficient here. I never once noticed any of the signs in ...


1

This standard of proof means that, if we accuse someone of a crime ("Jimmy Jones Stole the Cookies From the Cookie Jar") and that person denies the claim (Mr. Jones says "Not me, Couldn't be!") that there are two stories that are in conflict, one must be true. Once I make the charge and present my evidence, I must show that my accusation is true. Jones on ...


1

Due process generally means, in the US, that when an individual's rights are affected by an administrative action, that person must be given notice and a meaningful chance to be heard. As described in thisw ballotpedia article The Massachusetts Open Meetings Act requires acess and has some procedural requirements Among the relevant provisions: The act ...


1

There may be specific statutes surrounding hiring. In Washington (most states have similar laws), RCW 28A.400.301 requires investigation of past sexual misconduct. A candidate must sign an authorizing statement whereby current and previous employers are asked (and required, within the state, to disclose such conduct); RCW 28A.400.303 also mandates background ...


1

The jury is supposed to base their decision on whether the evidence presented at trial has convinced them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. The mere fact that the defendant is being prosecuted (B) is not, in itself, evidence of guilt (A), and the jury is not supposed to consider it as such.


1

Normally a motion under Rule 59 of U.S. civil rules based upon the federal rules of civil procedure can be brought (if brought in time) to ask a court to reconsider a final order that resolves an action made by the court as well as a trial verdict. Even if the MSJ wasn't ruled upon, the Court had to issue some order to dismiss the case and that could be ...


1

Yes, with the caveat that one should always check local rules in whatever jurisdiction one is operating in. I can't think of a reason right now (although I may be overlooking some things) that a judge would ignore a motion for summary judgment, yet dismiss the case for another reason without dismissing it for another reason prior to the motion for summary ...


1

If a person has been arrested already, can the federal government bring up additional felony charges while that person awaits trial? Yes, they can bring related and unrelated charges as long as they are within the applicable statute of limitations. And if so how long does the government have to bring up the charges before trial? The general ...


1

It looks like you've glossed over the core problem here, which a trial lawyer might confirm: The responsive motion was ruled untimely. That's a pretty big obstacle to surmount. I.e., it doesn't matter how good your filing is; if it's untimely it doesn't merit consideration. The only ways I know of to advance an appeal at such a point are: File a motion/...


1

I am answering this question under the laws of the state of New Jersey. The elements of fraud in New Jersey are: (1) a material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by the defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and (5) ...


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