The defendant, William L. Stickney 3, 23, of 3211 Park pl., Evanston, who pleaded guilty to reckless driving, also was ordered by Judge James Corcoran to attend the Evanston traffic school each Tuesday night for one month.

The appellant in the new case can be either the plaintiff ( or claimant ), defendant, third-party intervenor, or respondent ( appellee ) from the lower case, depending on who was the losing party.

This can mean that where it is the defendant who appeals, the name of the case in the law reports reverses ( in some cases twice ) as the appeals work their way up the court hierarchy.

In the past, a defendant who refused to plead ( or " stood mute ") was subject to peine forte et dure ( Law French for " strong and hard punishment ").

Today in common-law jurisdictions, the court enters a plea of not guilty for a defendant who refuses to enter a plea.

Allocution is sometimes required of a defendant who pleads guilty to a crime in a plea bargain in exchange for a reduced sentence.

The Supreme Court held that for the plea to be accepted, the defendant must have been advised by a competent lawyer who was able to inform the individual that his best decision in the case would be to enter a guilty plea.

" Webster's New World Law Dictionary defines Alford plea as: " A guilty plea entered as part of a plea bargain by a criminal defendant who denies committing the crime or who does not actually admit his guilt.

However, this is mainly because it is not the prosecutor but the judges who question the defendant.

* Revised Code of Washington 9. 12. 010: " Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor ; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.

In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harmbut does so minimally against each individual plaintiffmust compensate those individuals for their injuries.

" He passed a hat and gave the fines to the defendant, who left the court with $ 47. 50.

In a majority of states, the burden is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

In federal court, and in Arizona, the burden is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

In United States v. Carpenter ( 1986 ) the U. S. Supreme Court cited an earlier ruling while unanimously upholding mail and wire fraud convictions for a defendant who received his information from a journalist rather than from the company itself.

By 1997, the phrase had entered the legal lexicon as seen in an opinion by Supreme Court of the United States Justice John Paul Stevens, ' An example of " junk science " that should be excluded under the Daubert standard as too unreliable would be the testimony of a phrenologist who would purport to prove a defendant ’ s future dangerousness based on the contours of the defendant ’ s skull.

One defendant, " a 14-year-old boy, was acquitted after his attorneys discredited the children's persistent interrogations by a psychologist who called herself the ' yucky secrets doctor.

During the Tōjō-regime this was suspended, arguably stemming from the popular belief that any defendant who risks his fate on the opinions of untrained laymen is almost certainly guilty.

Those who oppose it state that the requirement that the defendant must speak to indicate his intention to remain silent further erodes the ability of the defendant to stay completely silent about the case.

A defendant who seeks to challenge the admissibility of a statement under Miranda must show that the statement was " prompted by police conduct that constituted ' interrogation '".

This mean that the defendant had to object to the error when it occurred in the trial.

If a defendant has been convicted and can prove that his lawyer did not adequately handle his case and that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the lawyer given competent representation, he is entitled to a new trial.

The defendant had to have pleaded not guilty, and the jury did not instead recommend a life sentence.

Alford was sentenced to thirty years in prison, after the trial judge in the case accepted the plea bargain and ruled that the defendant had been adequately apprised by his lawyer.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that the defendant had voluntarily entered the guilty plea, with knowledge of what that meant.

" The Court allowed the guilty plea only with a simultaneous protestation of innocence as there was enough evidence to show that the prosecution had a strong case for a conviction, and the defendant was entering such a plea to avoid this possible sentencing.

Upon receiving an Alford guilty plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime.

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.

Each team had seven members – one judge, two members each from the district court and the local government election authorities and two witnesses each representing the plaintiff ( Pan-Blue Coalition ) and the defendant ( Pan-Green Coalition ).

Grigson had spent 15 years testifying for such cases, and he almost invariably gave the same damning testimony, often saying that it is " one hundred per cent certain " that the defendant would kill again.

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.

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 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.

In R v Clarke 1972 1 All E R 219 a defendant charged with a minor theft ( shoplifting ) claimed she had no mens rea because she had absent-mindedly walked out of the shop without paying because she suffered from depression.

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.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that a " conviction based on a no contest plea will collaterally estop the criminal defendant from denying any element in a subsequent civil action against him that was necessarily established by the conviction, as long as the prior conviction was for a serious criminal offense and the defendant in fact had the opportunity for a full and fair hearing ".

They considered themselves to lack jurisdiction over a defendant until he had voluntarily submitted to it by entering a plea seeking judgment from the court.

In the common law, an answer is the first pleading by a defendant, usually filed and served upon the plaintiff within a certain strict time limit after a civil complaint or criminal information or indictment has been served upon the defendant.

It may have been preceded by an optional " pre-answer " motion to dismiss or demurrer ; if such a motion is unsuccessful, the defendant must file an answer to the complaint or risk an adverse default judgment.

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.

In the United States, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to prohibit a jury from drawing a negative inference based on the defendant's invocation of his right not to testify, and the jury must be so instructed if the defendant requests.

In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict ( autrefois means " previously " in French ), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence.

In certain areas of the law another head of damages has long been available, whereby the defendant is made to give up the profits made through the civil wrong in restitution.

A defendant or defender ( Δ in legal shorthand ) is any party required to answer a plaintiff's complaint in a civil lawsuit, or any party that has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute.

K. learns that, to Titorelli's knowledge, not a single defendant has ever been acquitted.

Upon their passage, the defendant has been " impeached ".

In the Durham case, the court ruled that a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of his mental illness ( i. e., crime would not have been committed but for the disease ).

In other words, the defendant is in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought.

Specifically, the Massiah rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings deliberately elicited by the police from a defendant after formal charges have been filed.

Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction " all cases affecting … public ministers and consuls ," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a " public minister consul.