Full Answer
By Jean Murray. Updated July 08, 2018. The defendant in a lawsuit is the person against whom the action is brought, by the plaintiff. A defendant in an arbitration case or a divorce case s called the "respondent.".
The plaintiff in these cases is the state, that is, a local, state, or federal authority or special jurisdiction which is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the people. Civil cases, which are lawsuits brought by one party against another.
A defendant in an arbitration case or a divorce case is called the "respondent.". U.S. Law has two kinds of court cases which involve defendants: Criminal cases, which involve a defendant who is accused of a crime.
In a procedure called voir dire, lawyers and, sometimes, judges question potential jurors from a pool of citizens summoned to court to serve jury duty. Voir dire (vwar deer) means “to speak the truth."
Examination, Direct Examination, Examination-in-chief: The questions which the lawyer asks his own client or witnesses called by him.
Search Legal Terms and Definitions Direct examination is interrogation by the attorney who called the witness, and cross-examination is questioning by the opposing attorney.
Oral arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail.
leading. 1) v. short for "leading the witness," in which the attorney during a trial or deposition asks questions in a form in which he/she puts words in the mouth of the witness or suggests the answer.
Questioning of a detained person by the police in connection with a criminal investigation. A person is not only detained when under arrest, but also whenever not free to leave.
During a cross-examination, the opposing party questions the witness. Generally, a witness is initially questioned by the party that called them to the stand on direct examination. Afterwards, the opposing party has the opportunity to question the witness on cross-examination, often using targeted or leading questions.
Definition. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.
to be more fully informedA type of writ, meant for rare use, by which an appellate court decides to review a case at its discretion. The word certiorari comes from Law Latin and means "to be more fully informed." A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it.
“to stand by things decidedPrimary tabs. Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.
The direct examination or examination-in-chief is one stage in the process of adducing evidence from witnesses in a court of law. Direct examination is the questioning of a witness by the lawyer/side/party that called such witness in a trial.
Hearsay is a statement by someone to a witness who, while testifying in court, repeats the statement. The statement is hearsay only if it is offered for the truth of its contents. In general, courts exclude hearsay evidence in trials, criminal or otherwise.
A party us allowed to cross examine his own witness because the witness displays hostility and not necessarily because; he display untruthfulness. The fact that the witness is being cross examined does not imply an admission that all the witness ' statement are false .
However, if the defendant is found guilty or pleads guilty, the victim has several opportunities to let the court know how the crime affected his/her life.
Victims' rights laws apply to victims whether or not the victim testifies as a witness. The right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's dignity and privacy; The right to be reasonably protected from the accused offender; The right to be notified of court proceedings;
Restitution is the payment of money by the defendant to the victim or to the court for damages caused by his/her actions. The court will issue an order of restitution in cases where restitution is mandatory and will consider issuing a restitution order in cases where restitution is discretionary.
The date, time, and location of each court proceeding that the witness and victim is either required to or permitted to attend; The release or detention status of an offender or suspected offender. The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after trial.
If you are a victim or a witness, the Victim-Witness Program of the United States Attorney's office can help you understand the rights given to you by law. The United States Attorney 's office is committed to ensuring that crime victims and witnesses are treated fairly by the criminal justice system. This pamphlet will provide answers ...
What Happens in Felony Cases. Victims of crime, and other people who have knowledge about the commission of a crime, are often required to testify at a trial or at other court proceedings. The federal criminal justice system cannot function without the participation of victims and witnesses.
Plea Agreements. When the United States Attorney reaches an agreement with a defendant, a plea agreement is established. A guilty plea can take place at any time, and can even take place after trial has begun. To the public and to many victims, plea bargaining has a negative image.
The plaintiff initially decides where to bring the suit, but in some cases, the defendant can seek to change the court. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases. A federal court in one state, for example, can usually only decide a case that arose from actions in that state.
To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal.". Both the plaintiff and the defendant can appeal, and the party doing so is called the appellant. Appeals can be made for a variety of reasons including improper procedure and asking the court to change its interpretation of the law.
Federal criminal juries consist of 12 persons. Federal civil juries consist of six persons. plaintiff - The person who files the complaint in a civil lawsuit. plea - In a criminal case, the defendant's statement pleading "guilty" or "not guilty" in answer to the charges in open court.
bail - Security given for the release of a criminal defendant or witness from legal custody (usually in the form of money) to secure his/her appearance on the day and time appointed.
A. acquittal - Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit - A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making it. Affidavits must be notarized or administered by an officer of the court with such authority.
appellate - About appeals; an appellate court has the power to review the judgment of another lower court or tribunal. arraignment - A proceeding in which an individual who is accused of committing a crime is brought into court, told of the charges, and asked to plead guilty or not guilty.
charge to the jury - The judge's instructions to the jury concerning the law that applies to the facts of the case on trial. chief judge - The judge who has primary responsibility for the administration of a court. The chief judge also decides cases, and the choice of chief judges is determined by seniority.
The defendant in a lawsuit is the person against whom the action is brought, by the plaintiff. A defendant in an arbitration case or a divorce case is called the "respondent." U.S. Law has two kinds of court cases which involve defendants: 1 Criminal cases, which involve a defendant who is accused of a crime. The plaintiff in these cases is the state, that is, a local, state, or federal authority or special jurisdiction which is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the people. 2 Civil cases, which are lawsuits brought by one party against another. Civil cases include small claims court, debt cases, and general business lawsuits.
In an arbitration, the defendant is called a respondent, because they are responding to the claims of the claimant. An exception to the custom of having a defendant and a plaintiff for each court case is bankruptcy court. In this court, there is no plaintiff or defendant.
In other types of lawsuits (a divorce case, for example), you would have to file a document in response. The first thing you must do is to reply to this document within the required amount of time (30 days, for example). If you don't respond within the required time period, the plaintiff has the right to file for a judgment against you.
A defendant in an arbitration case or a divorce case is called the "respondent.". U.S. Law has two kinds of court cases which involve defendants: Criminal cases, which involve a defendant who is accused of a crime. The plaintiff in these cases is the state, that is, a local, state, or federal authority or special jurisdiction which is bringing ...
In a civil lawsuit - one person against another - the plaintiff and defendant typically each get an attorney and the case proceeds after both parties have received notice.
The plaintiff in these cases is the state, that is, a local, state, or federal authority or special jurisdiction which is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the people. Civil cases, which are lawsuits brought by one party against another. Civil cases include small claims court, debt cases, and general business lawsuits.
If you are sued, you become a defendant. The first thing that happens is that you are served with a complaint or a petition (depending on the type of case). This document is served by an officer of the court (a sheriff's deputy, for example). Sometimes the document requires you to appear in court. This would happen in a small claims court case.
Victim-defendants have different motives in their use of violence than their batterers. While the battere r uses violence or the threat of violence as a means of control and coercion, the victim defendant is usually acting in self-defense, as a means of pre-empting anticipated violence, in retaliation for past abuse, ...
There are survivors who are arrested because of false accusations by their batterer —another form of ongoing domestic violence—and others who are arrested when their batterer manipulates the facts of a violent incident to make it seem that the survivor was the primary aggressor when both parties engaged in violence.
The survivor does almost the same thing, but for the batterer. The survivor will often minimize the abuse or violence, focus on their behavior as the cause of the incident, they will remain silent or sometimes defend the batterer while hiding their own injuries and explaining the “mistake” or “misunderstanding.”.
In an effort to create a “break in the action” between the parties, to ensure the safety of officers, both parties and any children who may be present, Officer’s sometimes jump to conclusions that are inaccurate and ultimately terribly damaging to the arrested survivor.
The contents of this web page are for informational purposes only, and nothing you read is intended to be legal advice. Please review our disclaimer about law/legal-related information on this website before taking action based upon anything you read or see.
Criminal cases involving person crimes are rarely simple, open and shut kinds of matters.
To understand what the victim can do in the case (versus what the defendant can or cannot do), it first helps to understand the victim’s role in the case.
Because the victim is not on one side or the other, she can decide if she wants to help one, the other, both, or neither.
Crime Victims' Rights to Notice and Information. Although it might seem obvious, the most basic and essential right is providing victims "notice of their rights .". Typically, law enforcement, victim services, or a prosecutor's office automatically provides this initial notification of rights to victims.
Many notice provisions aim to ensure victims know when criminal proceedings are taking place so they can avail themselves of other rights , such as the right to be present and heard at trial and sentencing (discussed below).
Most states require victims to be notified when an offender will be released from jail ( bail, probation) or from prison (supervised release, parole, or clemency) or if the offender escapes from confinement.
A victim has a right to be heard by making oral or written statements to the court. In most (if not all) states, victims have the right to be heard at sentencing. Sometimes called a "victim impact statement," it offers victims a chance to tell the judge and defendant how the crime impacted their lives.
But even once the crime is over, crime victims face a daunting and long road ahead as the case winds its way through the criminal justice system. To assist victims and their families, states enacted crime victims' rights laws to protect victims who are stuck in the system through no fault of their own.
Right to a Prompt Resolution (or Speedy Trial) Several state laws provide victims the right to have the criminal case proceed in a reasonably timely manner. These laws usually limit the continuances and delays that a court can allow in a criminal case.
Most states provide victims' rights to immediate family members of homicide victims and to parents or guardians of minor, incompetent, or disabled crime victims.
Experienced attorneys ask questions to get a sense of how a juror will respond to the evidence and arguments in the case about to be tried. In most federal courts, lawyers submit questions to the judge, who will then question the potential jurors in open court. In state courts, however, lawyers are typically permitted to question ...
The process of jury selection should result in a fair jury, though lawyers will often use the selection questions to make sure that jurors will be receptive to their theory of the case.
Its primary purpose is to make sure that the jurors can listen fairly and impartially to the evidence and render a verdict in accordance with ...
By using a peremptory challenge, a lawyer can dismiss a potential juror from the case without giving any reason to the judge.
If questionnaires are not used, lawyers or judges simply ask all of their questions in open court. Potential jurors may be questioned as a group or one at a time.
A “for cause” dismissal means the court has agreed with at least one lawyer’s argument about the unsuitability of a potential juror (or has reached this conclusion on its own). A lawyer can raise an unlimited number of “for cause” challenges during jury selection.
The defense lawyer might attempt to determine how potential jurors will react to that trial strategy by asking questions about the right to “stand your ground,” to defend your property, to possess firearms, and to protect others from harm.
As part of their trial strategy, lawyers will call their witnesses in an order that’s most helpful for convincing the jury of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. However, the judge has the ultimate say over when witnesses testify.
Criminal defendants have the right under the Sixth Amendment’s “confrontation clause” to be present when witnesses are testifying against them and to cross-examine those witnesses. There may be exceptions, however, when witnesses aren’t available to testify at trial. Depending on the circumstances, certain types of reliable statements from unavailable witnesses might be admitted as evidence, such as previous testimony at a preliminary hearing or deposition where the defendant’s attorney was able to question the witness.
Before the trial, as part of the evidence-sharing process known as “ discovery ,” defendants are normally entitled to receive the names and statements of the witnesses that the prosecution plans to call (although prosecutors may not always have to reveal the names of confidential informants). Defendants also have a right to any information that prosecutors have about the identity or whereabouts of other witnesses who might be able to provide relevant testimony for the defense.
Criminal trials follow the same basic order. Following opening statements, the prosecution presents its evidence, including its witnesses. For each witness, there may be two or more steps to the testimony: 1 Direct examination. First, the prosecutor will ask questions intended to bring out the witness’s story. 2 Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility. 3 Redirect and recross examination. After the cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask the witness more questions, usually to clarify parts of the testimony or address issues that came up during the cross. Then, the defense attorney also has another chance at further questioning, usually to discuss new subjects discussed during the redirect.
That personal knowledge is one reason witness testimony can be so persuasive to juries. Sometimes, witness testimony is the only evidence that places the defendant at (or far from) the crime scene. Other times, witnesses provide the context that supports or undermines other evidence. Either way, there are general rules for how ...
After the cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask the witness more questions, usually to clarify parts of the testimony or address issues that came up during the cross. Then, the defense attorney also has another chance at further questioning, usually to discuss new subjects discussed during the redirect.
Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility.
If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions. Three days later, the detectives interviewed Medina again.
An explicit request for an attorney requires all questioning to cease. If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions.
Medina argued he merely began a routine conversation about something unrelated to the murder. The court acknowledged truly routine conversation about an unrelated topic would not signal a suspect’s desire to talk about the murder.
96 (1975)), the Supreme Court allowed a second interrogation after the suspect had invoked the right to remain silent upon consideration of four factors: The interrogation immediately ceased when the defendant said he did not want to talk anymore.