Shout at Eichmann though he might, the Prosecutor could not establish that the defendant was falsifying the way he felt about Jews or that what he did feel fell into the generally recognized category of anti-Semitism.

* A defendant could also argue that he was engaged in mutually consensual behavior.

The jury could only cast a ' yes ' or ' no ' vote as to the guilt and sentence of the defendant.

Under the Alford plea, the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court went on to note that even if the defendant could have shown that he would not have entered a guilty plea " but for " the rationale of receiving a lesser sentence, the plea itself would not have been ruled invalid.

As evidence existed that could have supported Alford's conviction, the Supreme Court held that his guilty plea was allowable while the defendant himself still maintained that he was not guilty.

Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create " incompatible standards " of conduct for the defendant to follow.

Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation.

In Connelly v DPP ( AC 1254 ), the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are " special circumstances " proven by the prosecution.

A defendant who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated form of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first conviction.

If a defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that someone might be hurt by their actions, there may be no liability.

" The key is that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of his actions during the commission of the crime.

The defendant could freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by judges, and the decisions of the jury were non-binding.

It is generally allowed by a court when a defendant could reasonably have believed that the plaintiff was not going to exercise his or her legal rights and acted on that belief to his or her detriment.

This opposition must be put in context with the second option offered by the majority opinion, which allowed that the defendant had the option of remaining silent, saying: " Had he wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response or unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights, ending the interrogation ".

The question is whether the consequences of an outcome adverse to the defendant could be characterized as punishment.

Clearly a criminal trial is a criminal proceeding since if convicted the defendant could be fined or imprisoned.

Apparently the police could continue questioning the defendant about uncharged crimes assuming that the defendant was not in custody.

The inquisitor could keep a defendant in prison for years before the trial to obtain new information, and could return them to prison if he felt that the witness had not fully confessed.

It was held that, as the defendant had been aware of his actions, he could neither have been in a state of automatism nor insane, and the fact that he believed that God had told him to do this merely provided an explanation of his motive and did not prevent him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong in the legal sense.

Proponents of the adversarial system often argue that the system is more fair and less prone to abuse than the inquisitional approach, because it allows less room for the state to be biased against the defendant.

In alternative pleading, legal fiction is employed to permit a party to argue two mutually exclusive possibilities, for example, submitting an injury complaint alleging that the harm to the plaintiff caused by the defendant was so outrageous that it must have either been intended as a malicious attack or, if not, must have been due to gross negligence.

In jurisprudence, unconsciousness may entitle the criminal defendant to the defense of automatism, i. e a state uncontrollably of one's own actions, an excusing condition that allows a defendant to argue that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions or omissions.

:: Example: A criminal defendant is entitled to jury instructions that accurately state the law, permit him to argue his theory of the case, and are supported by the evidence.

In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs.

Some states refuse to set a fixed minimum age, but leave discretion to prosecutors to argue or the judges to rule on whether the child or adolescent (" juvenile ") defendant understood that what was being done was wrong.

In jurisprudence, prosecutorial misconduct is a procedural defense ; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which may have broken the law, because the prosecution acted in an " inappropriate " or " unfair " manner.

Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue that it is the proper role of a judge, not a prosecutor, to apply discretion given the particular facts of a case ( e. g. whether a drug defendant was a kingpin or low-level participant ).

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, argue that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity.

In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, the defence of mental disorder ( sometimes called the defence of mental illness ) is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because they were mentally ill at the time of the alleged criminal actions.

For example, the state of Virginia does not recognize the doctrine of indispensable parties ; although a defendant may argue that the plaintiff has improperly failed to join a party that would conventionally be deemed indispensable, and may seek to have the court attempt to join the missing party, if it is not feasible to join the missing party then the case will simply go on without them.

The defendant argues that damages should be slight, since " he is such a very bad lot ," while the plaintiff argues that she loves the defendant fervently and seeks " substantial damages.

Additionally, forensic reconstruction of a shooting relies on using identical ammunition from the manufacturer, where handloaded ammunition cannot be guaranteed identical to the ammunition used in the shooting, since " the defendant literally manufactured the evidence ".

An interesting innovation was introduced in Russia in the judicial reform of Alexander II: unlike in modern jury trials, jurors decided not only whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, but they had the third choice: " Guilty, but not to be punished ", since Alexander II believed that justice without morality is wrong.

Many defendants charged with capital offences nonetheless refused to plead, since thereby they would escape forfeiture of property, and their heirs would still inherit their estate ; but if the defendant pleaded guilty and was executed, their heirs would inherit nothing, their property escheating to the Crown.

There was one case where a defendant was served while the airplane was in the air over the forum State, and the US Supreme Court held that this was valid service, since at law the territory of a state includes the airspace above the State.

Comparative negligence has also been criticized, since it would allow a plaintiff who is recklessly 95 % negligent to recover 5 % of the damages from the defendant, and often more when a jury is feeling sympathetic.

No President, before or since Grant, has ever given a deposition for a criminal defendant in a federal trial.

Burger King has been involved in several legal disputes and cases, as both plaintiff and defendant, in the years since its founding in 1954.

Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and discount fossil fuel company, while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc. Alcolac was named as a defendant in the Aziz v. Iraq case presently pending in the United States District Court ( Case No. 1: 09-cv-00869-MJG ).

The New York Court of Appeals disagreed and held that since the defendant knew he was susceptible to a seizure at any time without warning and decided to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway anyway, he was guilty of the offense.

Thus, only mistakes relating to the factual basis of what is being attempted can form this defense and, in the majority of situations, it will only offer limited benefit to a defendant of ordinary capacity since the state owes no general duty to save citizens from the effects of their own ignorance or stupidity.

Many defendants charged with capital offences nonetheless refused to plead, since thereby they would escape forfeiture of property, and their heirs would still inherit their estate ; but if the defendant pleaded guilty and was executed, their heirs would inherit nothing, their property escheating to the Crown.

In effect, the whole novel seems to indict the plaintiff for collaborating, while the defendant is guilty of a minor exaggeration since only one thousand surgeries could be verified from evidence, as opposed to the claimed fifteen thousand.

As the defendant says before the verdict is read, " Nobody's going to win this trial ; we're all losers ," since he realizes that, even though most people think that they could resist the pressure that could arise in a concentration camp, it is impossible to tell who will be able to resist.

Originally, Atkins had been offered a reduced sentence ( life imprisonment instead of the death penalty ) for her testimony, since she was the first defendant to be arrested, and she had agreed to tell her story at the grand jury hearings.

The Doctor's demand that the trial be halted, since the same person cannot be both prosecutor and defendant, is turned down by the Inquisitor-but at that moment the Valeyard flees the courtroom.

Although the laws since 19th century mostly require " personal service " of process, and sworn " proof of process " that the defendant has received notice of trial, in many areas the parties involved in service of process get away with perjured proof of process, claiming to have delivered the legal documents which in fact have not reached defendant ( but rather been discarded " in sewer ").

In any event, all relevant sentencing facts may not be known prior to trial, since prosecutors typically wait until after a guilty verdict is obtained before gathering a full history of the defendant and examining the pertinent facts of the crime in order to recommend a sentence.

However, the plaintiff, Fon Gorji-Dinka maintains that the Bamenda High Court reached a decision according to which the court among other things held that "( b ) President Paul Biya is guilty of treason for furthering and completing the treason of Ahidjo by bringing about the secession of the first defendant ( East Cameroon ) from the United Republic of Cameroon on February 4, 1984, reinstating its name " Republic of Cameroon " which had not been used since January 10, 1961.

It has been argued that legislators have an incentive to enact tougher sentences than even they would like to see applied to the typical defendant, since they recognize that the blame for an inadequate sentencing range to handle a particular egregious crime would fall upon legislators, but the blame for excessive punishments would fall upon prosecutors.