Sentences with phrase «on guilty defendants»

After the immense criticism which has accompanied the charge on guilty defendants and the finding that it is not generating as much...

Not exact matches

In returning its verdict Thursday afternoon on the sixth day of deliberations, the Superior Court jury also pronounced Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty of assault with a firearm, finding credence in defense attorneys» argument that the shot that ricocheted off the concrete ground before piercing Steinle's heart was an accident, with the gun discharging after the defendant stumbled upon it on the waterfront on July 1, 2015.

Where defendant, manufacturer of a sauce similar to plaintiff's, copied the printed matter on plaintiff's bottle and carton and adopted a bottle and carton of the same size and shape as plaintiff's, he was guilty of unfair competition, although certain differences between the bottles could be discovered when the two were placed side by side.

How many people on here have already decided Volkan is guilty based on almost zero evidence other than the defendant's claims.

After Turaki pleaded not guilty to the 32 counts on Tuesday, Justice Dimgba said he was inclined to granting bail to the ex-governor «in deference» to the earlier bail granted the defendant by Justice Halilu of the FCT High Court.

After the charges were read to the defendant, he pleaded not guilty while his lawyer, Mrs Uzuomaka Nwafor applied for bail on liberal terms.

All the defendants had on December 15, 2015, pleaded not guilty to the charge against them.

The defendants on the other hand can make no specific responses to them, which unfortunately makes them seem guilty even if they are merely invoking their fundamental Fifth Amendment right to remain silent so as not to prejudice their case while they are mounting their defense.

The defendants, thereafter, took their «not guilty» plea to the amended 43 - count charge bordering on money laundering.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges when they appeared before the trial judge, Justice Jude Okeke, on Tuesday.

The nearly 10 - week bench trial, which included evidence from hundreds of wiretaps, yielded a verdict of guilty, and the defendant now faces up to 8 1/3 to 25 years on Enterprise Corruption alone, and faces up to 30 years in prison on call 198 counts combined.

The first Defendant (Badeh) pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him, while the court relied on Section 478 of the Criminal Justice Act to enter a «not guilty» plea for the second defendant which is a corDefendant (Badeh) pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against him, while the court relied on Section 478 of the Criminal Justice Act to enter a «not guilty» plea for the second defendant which is a cordefendant which is a corporation.

Putting financial pressure on a defendant to plead guilty — whatever the evidence and nature of the case — bears the hallmarks of a US - style plea bargaining system.»

The group really engaged in debating the verdict of whether the defendant on trial was guilty or not guilty.

Yuki's career rests on a guilty verdict, so when Lindsay finds evidence that could save the defendant, she is forced to choose.

By Dan Krosse Photography: Jonathan Boncek On August 8, 2016 the defendant accused of nearly killing Caitlyn by taping her muzzle shut more than a year earlier, pleaded guilty to a felony count of animal cruelty.

«DISCOVER MULTIPLE ENDINGS with innovative court room game play based on your moral decisions: convict, plea bargain, or find the defendant not guilty!»

Tomkins did point out that some of the women who were Andre loyalists were former girlfriends, but at the same time if you read the article it sounds like «some feminists» thought he was guilty and would harass him if they saw him in public places — that is, the implications is that only feminists thought he was guilty, you know, those harpies, whereas in fact the judge's wording of the verdict (and implications in Katz's text based on interviews) suggested a relation to the judgement available in British jurisprudence but not in the US, that is, what would have been a verdict of «not proven,» meaning he probably did it, but in the end the verdict was «I have concluded that the evidence has not satisfied me beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.»

Well, there's a couple things to note @Dmitry: First off, you're innocent until proven guilty, so if something like this happens, the onus is on the Crown to prove guilt on the part of the defendant.

The four defendants — Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundström — were found guilty of having assisted in making 33 copyright - protected files available for sharing on the BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay.

For instance, websites for criminal defense attorneys can be more enticing if the messaging zeroes in on how a guilty verdict can jeopardize a defendant's future employment and earnings.

Standard of Proof: In a civil proceeding a judge must find the defendant guilty on a «balance of probabilities».

The instruction was ultimately denied, and the defendant was found guilty on both robbery counts.

Both cases, as different as they are, are casting new light on a legal issue that has been simmering for years: when, whether and how defendants should be informed about the collateral consequences of pleading or being found guilty.

Judge Seated Juror Who Declared Defendant Guilty Before Trial Jose Felipe Velasco insists Orange County Judge David A. Hoffer cheated him out of a fair trial by placing a juror on the supposedly neutral citizen's panel after she repeatedly declared the defendant guilty before hearing any Defendant Guilty Before Trial Jose Felipe Velasco insists Orange County Judge David A. Hoffer cheated him out of a fair trial by placing a juror on the supposedly neutral citizen's panel after she repeatedly declared the defendant guilty before hearing any eviGuilty Before Trial Jose Felipe Velasco insists Orange County Judge David A. Hoffer cheated him out of a fair trial by placing a juror on the supposedly neutral citizen's panel after she repeatedly declared the defendant guilty before hearing any defendant guilty before hearing any eviguilty before hearing any evidence.

On appeal from [2014] EWCA Crim 748 This appeal considered whether, when a defendant pleads not guilty to murder on.On appeal from [2014] EWCA Crim 748 This appeal considered whether, when a defendant pleads not guilty to murder on.on...

Criminal defendant who pleaded guilty, then appealed his conviction based on his attorney's failure to tell him he would be deported, could not show he had been prejudiced by this failure because, (1) just before accepting his plea, the judge told him he would likely be deported, and (2) he could not show he was likely to obtain a more favorable result by going to trial.

Thus in Sedley's case (1675) Strange 168, 1 Sid 168, the defendant pleaded guilty to outraging public decency where he had appeared naked on the balcony of a house and had urinated on several people present.

In a probation case, the defendant is found guilty (i.e. convicted) and sentenced to a period of time in jail or prison; however, the jail time or prison time is «probated» or suspended, meaning put on hold.

Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which made clear that making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

This appeal considered whether, when a defendant pleads not guilty to murder on the grounds of diminshed responsibility, the judge must direct the jury as to the meaning of «substantial» for the purposes of the phase «substantially impaired» in the Homicide Act 1957, s 2 (1)(b).

If we truly believed in protecting the innocent and supporting those falsely accused of crimes, should we not be imposing publication bans on the defendant's name until such time as a guilty verdict is rendered?

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

The media defendants were also found guilty of criminal contempt of court on March 13, 2017 for violating the permanent injunction not to continue to discredit Senator Enverga.

This means, much to the chagrin of a legion of Brooklyn gumshoes, that divorce lawyers in New York no longer need to routinely prove that the defendant was guilty of «cruel and inhuman treatment» of such severity that medical attention was required on two separate occasions or on - the - scene evidence of adultery witnessed by a third party.

It appears to me that these defendants are being sentenced not on the charges for which they have been found guilty but on the charges for which the District Attorney's office would have liked them to have been found guilty.

The defendants pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison and the sentence was suspended on condition that for 25 years they would never both be in the state of Virginia at the same time.

The American criminal justice system is far from being sufficiently enlightened, starting by too many presumed - innocent people caged without bond pending sentencing, moving to Virginia's crabbed criminal discovery system, continuing to Virginia's system that allows prosecutors to scare defendants to plead guilty by their refusal to waive a jury that in many instances and locations can mean more racist jurors than judges on top of the jurors often being more wild cards than judges for sentencing, continuing to the many judges who choose judicial efficiency over a fair trial, continuing to the brutal capital punishment system, cntinuing to excessive mandatory minimum and guideline sentencing, and continuing to the slew of innocent convicted people (many of whom plead gulilty rather than risking a worse fate), and continuing to frequently excessive sentences and excessive probation violation sentences.

If the defendant is guilty in Georgia then the Judge decides the sentence based on the criminal code and their review of any mitigating or exacerbating circumstances.

PLEA AGREEMENT — an agreement between the defense counsel, on behalf of the defendant, and the prosecutor whereby the prosecutor usually allows the defendant to plead guilty to some lesser charge.

On the other hand, if a prosecutor believes the sentence of a defendant's guilty verdict is not appropriate or the defendant should not be acquitted of the charges, the prosecutor can appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court.

In order to satisfy the sufficiency requirement, the prosecutor must check whether the defendant will be found guilty with high likelihood based on the evidence obtained.

Provides that where a person is charged in respect of conduct that is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) and was an offence under one of the repealed offences listed in sub-s (2), and the only thing preventing the person being found guilty is that it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt whether the conduct took place before or after the commencement of SOA 2003, then it shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of determining the guilt of the defendant that the conduct took place at a time when the offence in respect of that conduct carried the lower penalty in terms of a custodial sentence which could be imposed on conviction of the defendant.

Where a defendant pleads guilty on the basis of a written plea, the basis of the plea is a «confession» within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence 1984, s 76 (A) and is therefore admissible at the request of a co-accused under s 76 (A)(1).

The line of authorities on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), s 74 (admissibility of guilty plea of co-accused) as distilled in the judgment of Lord Justice Staughton in R v Kempster, [1989] 1 WLR 1125, [1990] 90 Cr App R 14 (indicating that s 74 should be applied sparingly, because the evidence that a now absent co-accused has pleaded guilty may carry enormous weight in the minds of the jury, but it is nevertheless evidence which can not properly be tested in the trial of the remaining defendant) remains relevant despite the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).

In brief, the new procedure will require that the defendant serves on the prosecution and court a document containing the following: (i) the reasons why it would be unjust for the guilty plea to remain unchanged; (ii) what, if any, evidence the defendant wishes to call; (iii) identity of any proposed witness; and (iv) whether legal professional privilege is waived, specifying any material name and date.

Third, the Court's rigid constitutional rule could inadvertently head off more promising ways of addressing the underlying problem — such as statutory or administrative reforms requiring trial judges to inform a defendant on the record that a guilty plea may carry adverse immigration consequences.

Likewise, flexible statutory procedures for withdrawing guilty pleas might give courts appropriate discretion to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by allowing a particular defendant to withdraw a plea entered into on the basis of incomplete information.

In the result, the defendant is found not guilty of both counts on which he was arraigned.

A judge removed a juror after she reportedly posted on Facebook: «Gon na be fun to tell the defendant they're guilty.»