Sentences with phrase «trial by indictment»

The possible penalties on summary conviction are generally lower than on indictment, however the accused has more rights in a trial by indictment.

Not exact matches

His law firm bonanza was simultaneously deplored and celebrated — with former Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno telling a prospective client that he was inspired by his counterpart's trial lawyer paychecks to jumpstart his own consulting firm, leading to his own indictment.

Grimm, who handily beat hapless not - terribly - smart - guy Dominic Recchia last month by a whopping 13 points despite facing a 20 count federal indictment, had been preparing for a February trial.

A Queens Supreme Court judge denied motions by state Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D - East Elmhurst) to throw out his indictment and suppress evidence in his pending case on assault charges last Thursday, setting a Sept. 14 start date for his trial.

The newly revealed allegations, which do not appear in the complaint or any version of the indictment, were brought to light by Percoco's legal team, which is seeking to exclude them at trial.

From the headings of the above quoted invitation letters, it is very clear that the IGP was invited on those occasions by the Senate purposely because of Senator Dino Melaye's criminal indictment in respect of felonious and serious offenses of Criminal Conspiracy and Unlawful Possession of Prohibited Firearms by two (2) Principal Suspects (Kabiru Seidu A.K.A OSAMA, Nuhu Salisu A.K.A SMALL) arrested for several cases of kidnappings and armed robberies in Kogi State, who are already standing trial in a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Court also rejected the trial Judge's finding that the law was sound because the mandatory minimum sentence only applied where the Crown elected to proceed by indictment and that the «reasonable exercise of Crown discretion would result in summary proceedings».

Trial attorneys handle cases arising from complaints and / or indictments filed by the federal government.

Addario argued Crown attorneys have a lot of control over the pace of trials, because they can ask a judge to dismiss frivolous defence applications, can draft shorter indictments, vet witness lists, skip a preliminary hearing by drafting a direct indictment, refuse to bring applications to protect confidential informants or to introduce «hearsay» evidence, and could organize disclosure in easily searchable electronic format.

However, there is a category of hybrid offences where, even when the Crown elects to proceed by indictment, the accused will have no choice as to mode of trial, but must be tried by a Provincial Court judge.

Such judge may direct that the indictment shall be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial and in that event it shall be sealed by the clerk, and no person shall disclose its finding except as necessary for the issuance and execution of a warrant or summons.

Exhibit A: Emails sent by lawyers on trial in the Dewey & LeBoeuf criminal fraud case which mentioned things like «fake income,» «accounting tricks,» «cooking the books,» and deceiving a «clueless auditor» first ended up in the indictment and have been trotted out by prosecutors at every opportunity.

These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.

Ms. Hewitt provides detailed, practical suggestions on many aspects of a criminal defence file including: analysis of the Crown's case; reviewing the information / indictment; considering legal elements; dealing with co-accuseds; disclosure and production; elections; challenging the case to be made by the Crown; pre-trial preparations, including procedural considerations; jury versus non-jury trials; admissions; scheduling; preparing an opening address or summary; pretrial hearings; and running the trial itself, including details relating to issues of evidence.

If the Crown elects to proceed by Indictment then the accused can choose (or elect) to have his trial heard by a Judge or by both a Judge and Jury in Supreme Court.

It was held that the claimant's case fell at the first hurdle as the matter was one relating to trial on indictment and accordingly the Supreme Court Act 1981, s 29 (3) prevented a challenge by way of judicial review.

The district judges shall be elected by the qualified electors of their respective districts, and shall hold office for the term of 6 years (excepting those elected at said first election) from and including the first Monday of January, next succeeding their election and qualification; provided, that the First Judicial District shall be entitled to, and shall have three district judges, who shall possess co-extensive and concurrent jurisdiction, and who shall be elected at the same times, in the same manner, and shall hold office for the like terms as herein prescribed, in relation to the judges in other judicial districts, any one of said judges may preside on the empanneling [empaneling] of grand juries and the presentment and trial on indictments, under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law.

The provision would extend the powers and rights of audience of DCWs by enabling them to conduct: - summary trials in magistrates» courts; - certain proceedings in magistrates» courts, including proceedings relating to offences triable only on indictment by a judge and jury at the crown court; - applications and other proceedings relating to «preventative civil orders» such as anti-social behaviour orders; and - certain proceedings (other than criminal proceedings) assigned to the director of public prosecutions by the attorney general under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s 3 (2)(g).