Sentences with phrase «in a criminal trial there»

In a criminal trial there is only one ultimate issue.

Not exact matches

Being caught doing something that is taboo for your party, especially if there is photographic evidence, or texts, or worse, if it was strong enough evidence to find themselves in the middle of a criminal trial.

They argue there is no extradition treaty between the UK and Ghana for which reason McDermott should be sent to face trial in the UK, adding their client has not been charged for any criminal offence whatsoever.

There are a lot of pending criminal cases in respect of which of the accused persons standing trials made offers for plea bargain.

There's no «taking the fifth» you see, because the fifth amendment bars self - incrimination and there are no criminal penalties in civil trials and hence no incriminaThere's no «taking the fifth» you see, because the fifth amendment bars self - incrimination and there are no criminal penalties in civil trials and hence no incriminathere are no criminal penalties in civil trials and hence no incrimination.

A criminal jury trial is practically unheard of for offences under the Competition Act, because the accused normally plead out so the process is faster, especially in cases like this one, where there is no real case law available under the act, Khoury notes.

In those instances, civil courts have the ability to stay an action pending resolution of the criminal matter in «exceptional or extraordinary circumstances where there is a real risk that the right to a fair criminal trial will be seriously prejudiced by the continuation of the civil case.&raquIn those instances, civil courts have the ability to stay an action pending resolution of the criminal matter in «exceptional or extraordinary circumstances where there is a real risk that the right to a fair criminal trial will be seriously prejudiced by the continuation of the civil case.&raquin «exceptional or extraordinary circumstances where there is a real risk that the right to a fair criminal trial will be seriously prejudiced by the continuation of the civil case.»

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resuTrial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resutrial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resutrial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resuTrial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public intethere was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public iCriminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public intethere was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public iCriminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public icriminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public inteThere was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was remote.

There have been situations in which Ontario judges have halted cases involving serious criminal charges because they have taken too long to get to trial, however, this is not always the case.

[30] The criminal justice system is very decentralized in one aspect — trial courts are based in each inhabited island, and there is no «single central judicial authority» to regulate the application of law or judicial conduct.

The incident started back in December 2006, when a trial judge remarked, on the record, during a criminal sentencing proceeding, «You can't offend the kangaroos up there in kangaroo court.»

Of course, there are real forensics implications here, as these hidden files pop up as Exhibit A in divorce trials and criminal prosecutions.

Co-counsel arrangements are common in many areas of practice, from criminal trials and litigation, where there's significant court work, to complicated paper - laden negotiations.

There is also the risk that a widely - publicised inquiry could taint any jury in subsequent criminal proceedings, preventing a fair trial.

«Mr. Gold is one of the finest criminal lawyers in the country at both the trial and appellate levels and if there is a conviction here, depending upon his client's instruction, I expect to see this case appealed,» he says.

There are understandable concerns with shielding the identity of defendants in criminal trials but perhaps the time has come to rebalance the scale.

Adam Makepeace, practice manager at criminal law firm Tuckers Solicitors, said: «At a time when the issue of miscarriages of justice is making front page headlines because of failures by the police and CPS to comply with their disclosure obligations, it is obvious to all how important it is that there is effective representation of defendants in criminal trials.

After the police released the appellant from arrest without charge, two newspapers applied to lift a Crown Court order postponing his identification in contemporaneous reports of the criminal trial on the ground that there were now no «pending or imminent» proceedings against the appellant that might be prejudiced by publication.

Is there anyone here who believes that Al Capone's paper work gotcha, malum prohibitum of not paying taxes should not have stood in for his ordering the St.Valentine's Day Massacre and hundreds of other murders, that substantive reasonableness would have protected the constitution and made the public better off, because their rights would be protected if they ever went to a criminal trial?

There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for criminal contempt charges resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of six months or less.

Further, under the bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there is also a strong case for the admission of the findings of care proceedings under «reprehensible conduct» in s 106 (2), although the court «must not admit» it if it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial — rather than the «may not admit» it under s 78.

By - the - way, in a criminal trail there's a constitutional right for defendants to have a speedy jury trial.

While there, Mr. Cuan prosecuted hundreds of criminal cases ranging from misdemeanors to serious felonies, litigating against some of the finest trial attorneys in the country.

This is because the «burden of proof» in a criminal trial is different than in a civil trial: even if the Crown at a criminal trial could not prove that an assault occurred «beyond a reasonable doubt» (which is an extremely difficult threshold to meet), we may still be able to prove that it occurred on a «balance of probabilities» (which means that there is a greater than 50 % chance that the assault occurred).

2 The test for committal under s. 548 (1) of the Criminal Code was settled by the Supreme Court of Canada a generation ago in United States v. Shephard (1976), 30 C.C.C. (2d) 424 (S.C.C.), where it was stated that a preliminary inquiry judge is required to commit an accused for trial when there is admissible evidence which, if it were believed by the trier, could justify a finding of guilt.

Even after they heard there was a problem, many didn't have the scientific background to understand what could be included in criminal trials.

Virginia criminal defense is in many ways like the wild, wild west, where the stakes of going to trial can be very high if there is a conviction.

On the cheating charges, the trial judge concluded horseracing is not a game within the meaning of s. 197 of the Criminal Code, the betting public was too remote from Mr. Riesberry's act of cheating, and the betting public was not deceived by his cheating because there was no evidence that anybody placed any bet in reliance or non-reliance on the fact the horse may have been injected with a performance - enhancing drug.

Looked at in aggregate terms, non-family civil proceedings are subject to an institutional squeeze — there is a constitutional imperative to try criminal cases within a reasonable time (the Askov issue) and a social imperative to move family law cases (particularly those involving children) through the system to trial with dispatch.

What governments do, do for the justice system doesn't cost money, such as, the Truth in Sentencing Act of 2010 (see, Criminal Code s. 719 (3)-RRB-; and, talk of abolishing the preliminary inquiry, which would be a very big mistake because: (1) what other opportunity is there for defence counsel to challenge the reliability of evidence that comes from complex electronic systems and devices, so as to better prepare for trial and plea bargaining?

There are certain offences for which the Criminal Code directs that the accused show why their detention in custody is not required pending trial.

There has been heightened public scrutiny on courts to deal with criminal cases at risk of being tossed since the Jordan ruling, and that pressure only increased last November when a Superior Court judge in Ottawa stayed a first - degree murder charge against ex-soldier Adam Picard, after it took four years to get his case to trial.

Over the course of more than six days of trial in which a number of police officers were cross-examined, Vancouver Criminal Defense Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan persuaded the Court that there was INSUFFICIENT evidence to support a conclusion that Client KNEW the drugs were in the vehicle, despite the fact that Client was driving and the car was registered to him.

«It would be surprising if a claimant in civil proceedings, who had to allege criminal conduct as a necessary part of his claim in rem, was not required to give the respondent and the court at least some particulars of what that conduct was said to be... It seems to me to be essential that if there is to be a fair trial that the respondent should know the case against him in sufficient detail to enable him to prepare properly to meet it.»

There are historical precedents for the use of evidence being given secretly by anonymous witnesses whom the defendant has been denied the opportunity to confront, including the Spanish Inquisition, the Court of Star Chamber in England, the Stalinist «show trials» in Communist Russia, the «supergrass» trials in Northern Ireland, and what passes for the criminal courts in Mugabe - controlled Zimbabwe, but surely emulating these instances is rather odious for any enlightened criminal justice system.

To preclude a civil litigant from relitigating an issue previously found against him in a criminal prosecution is less severe than to preclude him from relitigating such an issue in successive civil trials, for there are rigorous safeguards against unjust conviction, including the requirements of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and of a unanimous verdict, the right to counsel, and a record paid for by the state on appeal.

Although last year's Supreme Court of Canada's (SCC) decision in R. v. Jordan pushed the issue of trial delays for criminal matters to the fore, there has been... Read more