Sentences with phrase «guilty by a court of law»

How about a Catholic Father of two girls to get on and: 1) Agree that any violence against any human of any age is wrng an punisghable regardless after (at least in my country (the US) one is proven guilty by a court of law.

Not exact matches

I know that none of us believed that he was proved guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt, to the point of moral certainty, by the evidence presented to us in court, construed as the law provides and as the judge instructed.

The Christian Post reports Ossewaarde's appeal was rejected by the court in Oryol on Tuesday, after being found guilty of breaking Russian law.

The court said that by doing so, she had abandoned her religious faith and was guilty of apostasy, which carries the ultimate penalty under Islamic law...

He also said he was fully vetted by the Second Department Grievance Committee of the New York court system, which conducted a thorough investigation into all the circumstances leading up to his guilty plea to determine his character and fitness to continue practicing law.

The plea of guilty in any court, the decision of guilty by any court, the forfeiture by the teaching certificateholder of a bond in any court of law, or the written acknowledgment, duly witnessed, of offenses listed in subsection (1) to the district school superintendent or a duly appointed representative of such superintendent or to the district school board shall be prima facie proof of grounds for revocation of the certificate as listed in subsection (1) in the absence of proof by the certificateholder that the plea of guilty, forfeiture of bond, or admission of guilt was caused by threats, coercion, or fraudulent means.

After being found guilty of violating antitrust laws by a US District Judge in 2013 and by an Appeals court in 2015, Apple's request for an appeal to the US Supreme Court was denied this past March, forcing it to settle with the plaintcourt in 2015, Apple's request for an appeal to the US Supreme Court was denied this past March, forcing it to settle with the plaintCourt was denied this past March, forcing it to settle with the plaintiffs.

... any county with a population of 200,000 or more may regulate or prohibit the running at large of dogs within said county, and cause such dogs as may be running at large to be impounded... Any person, firm or corporation who violates any rule or regulation... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided by the laws of this state in any court of competent jurisdiction, provided that in the case of continuing offenses, each day on which the offense occurs shall constitute a separate offense.

In another case, it was a juror who fell foul of contempt of court laws by indicating that he would find the defendant guilty in a Facebook post which declared that he had «always wanted to f *** up a paedophile».

If you don't show up for court and pay your ticket by mail, the prevailing case law seems to indicate that the failure to show up counts as an admission, although the box you check off on the ticket (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere) may change the interpretation of the act.

Last year, the Illinois Innocence Project assisted in the passage of a law, which for the first time in Illinois allows those convicted by a guilty plea to go to court to get evidence tested that might exonerate them because they are innocent.

Its position was that he had already been found guilty of professional misconduct by the higher courts that heard the OSC appeal and that all the law society had to do was «rubber stamp his conviction and sentence him,» Groia says in his factum.

A jury has no more «right» to find a «guilty» defendant «not guilty» than it has to find a «not guilty» defendant guilty, and the fact that the former can not be corrected by a court, while the latter can be, does not create a right out of the power to misapply the law.

R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38, [2007] All ER (D) 247 (Oct): in this case the question certified by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division for the opinion of the law lords neatly encapsulates the question raised by this appeal: «When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self - administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the administration of the drug then causes his death?»

This dicta by the Supreme Court in Hardesty did not discuss the effect of SCR 4.020 (1)(d) which gives the Judicial Conduct Commission «the authority to refer any judge of the Court of Justice who, after notice and hearing is found by the Commission to be guilty of misconduct, to the KBA for possible suspension or disbarment from the practice of law.»

The court therefore stayed the criminal negligence charge, citing a breach of sections 7 (right to life, liberty and the security of the person) and 11 (d)(right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under the court of law, if driver will plead guilty or will be found guilty with the crime by the judge or jury, he will then be bought to face a judge who will assess him with criminal penalties for committing the crime.

Also, really absurdly nitpicky note: under the «Don't include irrelevant info» paragraph it looks like the «arraignments» was written (def: A criminal proceeding at which the defendant is officially called before a court of competent jurisdiction, informed of the offense charged in the complaint, information, indictment, or other charging document, and asked to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or as otherwise permitted by law.