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 argue that since he was drunk, he could not form the specific intent to commit assault.

* 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.

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.

Voluntarily waiving the fundamental right of a defendant to place the burden of proof upon the prosecution, and to refrain from testifying under oath to any facts that might tend to incriminate himself, he took the witness stand and not only freely testified to facts relating to his own culpability but also volunteered his opinion under oath that he was wholly responsible for the disaster, and that none of his subordinates should be blamed.

The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms defines the term Alford plea as: " A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court.

Because it may take months, or even years, for criminal cases to come to trial in some jurisdictions, an innocent defendant who is offered a plea bargain that includes a sentence of less time than he would otherwise spend in jail awaiting a trial may choose to accept the plea arrangement and plead guilty.

In the English system, a plea is regarded as voluntary if the defendant, properly advised as to the possible alternatives by his counsel, has the freedom in his own mind to choose the plea he will make.

Instead of filing an answer within the time specified in the summons, the defendant can choose to dispute the validity of the complaint by filing a demurrer ( in the handful of jurisdictions where that is still allowed ) or one or more " pre-answer motions ," such as a motion to dismiss.

They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law.

If the defendant is found guilty, he can choose to appeal the case to the local Court of Appeals.

It was the tradition that the prosecutor and the defendant each propose a penalty, from which the court would choose.

If the defendant pleads not guilty ( or does not plead ) then he is asked to choose which court he wants to be tried in.

The defendant has no right to choose a jury trial, nor can a victim on their own decide to press charges, as the decision on whether to try by jury or summarily belongs to the prosecutor.

The appellate court will typically be deferential to the lower court's findings of fact ( such as whether a defendant committed a particular act ), unless clearly erroneous, and so will focus on the court's application of the law to those facts ( such as whether the act found by the court to have occurred fits a legal definition at issue ).

The defendant is asked whether he or she pleads guilty or not guilty to each charge.

Mather's most fatal influence over the trials was in composing the answer to the question of whether or not to allow Spectral evidence, that is, allowing the afflicted girls to claim that some invisible ghost of the defendant was tormenting them, and for this to be considered evidence of witchcraft by the defendant, even if the defendant denied it and professed their own strongly held Christian beliefs.

Similarly, mental health practitioners are restrained from making a judgment on the issue of whether the defendant is or is not insane or what is known as the " ultimate issue ".

* The issue of competency is whether a defendant is able to adequately assist his attorney in preparing a defense, make informed decisions about trial strategy and whether or not to plead guilty or accept a plea agreement.

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.

In the United States, state law determines whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant may plead no contest in state criminal cases.

Note that in the case of hybrid offences, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed summarily or by indictment prior to the defendant making his or her plea.

A demurrer is a pleading ( usually filed by a defendant ) which objects to the legal sufficiency of the opponent's pleading ( usually a complaint ) and demands that the court rule immediately about whether the pleading is legally adequate before the party must plead on the merits in response.

The first step is whether the accident is the kind that would usually be caused by negligence, and the second is whether or not the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the accident.

Judge John T. Raulston accelerated the convening of the grand jury and "... all but instructed the grand jury to indict Scopes, despite the meager evidence against him and the widely reported stories questioning whether the willing defendant had ever taught evolution in the classroom.

" There is considerable academic debate about whether vicarious liability is justified on no better basis than the search for a solvent defendant, or whether it is well founded on the theory of efficient risk allocation.

A slightly more limited defence may arise where the defendant has been given a warning, whether expressly to the claimant or by a public notice, sign or otherwise, that there is a danger of injury.

In Powell v. Alabama,, the Supreme Court ruled that “ in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him .” In Johnson v. Zerbst,, the Supreme Court ruled that in all federal cases, counsel would have to be appointed for defendants who were too poor to hire their own.

As stated in Brewer v. Williams,, the right to counsel “ at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment .” Brewer goes on to conclude that once adversary proceeding have begun against a defendant, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him and that when a defendant is arrested, “ arraigned on arrest warrant before a judge ,” and “ committed by the court to confinement ,” “ here can be no doubt that judicial proceedings ha been initiated .”

Even after a decision has been made, it is virtually impossible to know whether a jury has been correct or incorrect in freeing or accusing a defendant of a crime.