|
Political Defense
A political defense is a defense to a criminal charge in which the defendant asserts at trial the political motivations behind the allegedly criminal conduct. In some circumstances, the defendant might assert political motivations in order to seek acquittal. In other circumstances, defendants might not have a realistic hope of acquittal but may nevertheless use the trial as a forum for expressing political views. A political defense is distinguished from a legal defense. A legal defense, or a "technical defense", seeks acquittal by demonstrating that the defendant's conduct did not satisfy all of the elements of the alleged crime. In a political defense, the defendant might concede that the conduct took place, but attempt to convince the jury or the public that the conduct was inherently just because of its political motivation. Some defendants might offer both a technical defense and a political defense. Types of political defenses The form that a political defense will take ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Legal Defense
In a civil proceeding or criminal prosecution under the common law or under statute, a defendant may raise a defense (or defence) in an effort to avert civil liability or criminal conviction. A defense is put forward by a party to defeat a suit or action brought against the party, and may be based on legal grounds or on factual claims. Besides contesting the accuracy of an allegation made against the defendant in the proceeding, the defendant may also make allegations against the prosecutor or plaintiff or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable. Acceptance of a defense by the court completely exonerates the defendant and not merely mitigates the liability. The defense phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase, that is, after the prosecution "rests". Other parts of the defense include the opening and closing arguments and the cross-examination during the prosecution phase. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pro Se
''Pro se'' legal representation ( or ) comes from Latin ''pro se'', meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney. This status is sometimes known as ''in propria persona'' (abbreviated to "pro per"). In England and Wales the comparable status is that of "litigant in person". Prevalence According to the National Center for State Courts in the United States, as of 2006 ''pro se'' litigants had become more common in both state courts and federal courts. Estimates of the ''pro se'' rate of family law overall averaged 67% in California, 73% in Florida's large counties, and 70% in some Wisconsin counties. In San Diego, for example, the number of divorce filings involving at least one ''pro se'' litigant rose from 46% in 1992 to 77% in 2000, in Florida from 66% ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jury Nullification
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict despite a defendant having clearly broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists: # Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict. # A defendant who is acquitted can, in many jurisdictions, not be tried a second time for the same offence. A jury verdict that is contrary t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Entrapment
Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.''Sloane'' (1990) 49 A Crim R 270. See also agent provocateur It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent". Police conduct rising to the level of entrapment is broadly discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is available as a defense against criminal liability. Sting operations, through which police officers or agents engage in deception to try to catch persons who are committing crimes, raise concerns about possible entrapment. Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Camden 28
The Camden 28 were a group of leftist, Catholic, anti-Vietnam War activists who in 1971 planned and executed a raid on a draft board in Camden, New Jersey, United States. The raid resulted in a high-profile criminal trial of the activists that was seen by many as a referendum on the Vietnam War and as an example of jury nullification. The goal The goal of the group was to make a bold statement in opposition to the war in Vietnam by way of sabotaging the portion of the draft process that was administered through the local draft board in Camden. Their plan was to break into the draft board offices at night and search for, collect, and either destroy or remove the records of all Class 1-A status draft registrants. It was to be both a symbolic and real blow to the process through which tens of thousands of young American men were being drafted and sent to fight in Vietnam. They wrote in a statement before trial: We are twenty-eight men and women who, together with other resiste ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Shadow Defense
A shadow defense is a legal defense that cannot be sustained on its own merits but opens the door to introducing evidence that will assist in seeking jury nullification, and gives the jury an excuse to acquit. A "shadow defense" also may refer to a tactic by defending counsel that is not expected to be successful as a matter of law; it is, instead, a pretext for bringing information into the court that would otherwise be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. An insanity defense might be used to present evidence about a person's troubled childhood, for instance, or a defendant might claim self-defense or duress in order to present evidence about an abusive relationship that nonetheless did not present an imminent mortal danger to the defendant. An entrapment defense opens the door to presenting evidence about the behavior of police and informants. It is reversible error for a trial court to refuse a jury instruction on a theory of defense after a defendant makes a threshold showi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mens Rea
In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action (or lack of action) would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal Legal liability, liability is expressed in the Latin phrase ,1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.) i.e. "the act is not Culpability, culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a general rule, someone who acted without mental Fault (law), fault is not liable in criminal law Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law i ....". . . a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material eleme ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
International Law
International law (also known as public international law and the law of nations) is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally recognized as binding between states. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights. Scholars distinguish between international legal institutions on the basis of their obligations (the extent to which states are bound to the rules), precision (the extent to which the rules are unambiguous), and delegation (the extent to which third parties have authority to interpret, apply and make rules). The sources of international law include international custom (general state practice accepted as law), treaties, and general principles of law recognized by most national legal systems. Although international law may also be reflected in international comity—the practices adopted by states to maintain good relations and mutua ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Winooski 44
The Winooski 44 were a group of Vermont citizens in the United States who were given permission by the Senator's staff to occupy a hallway outside Senator Robert Stafford's office in March 1984. The group of citizens had attempted, for months, to organize a public forum, in Burlington, and invited Senator Stafford to be present. They all had personal experiences in Central America, which they wanted to share with the Senator, a leading Republican, and his Vermont constituency. The group wanted to influence Senator Stafford so he would change his vote, and instead vote against the US Government's policy of selling arms to Nicaraguan contras. The sit-in lasted for three days in March 1984. Twenty-six were tried on trespassing charges in November 1984, and were permitted to present a "necessity" defense, and all were acquitted.Ben Bradley (ed). ''Por Amor Al Pueblo: Not Guilty! - The Trial of the Winooski 44'' (1986) () Witnesses for the defense included historian and activist Howa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government (or any other authority). By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called "civil". Hence, civil disobedience is sometimes equated with peaceful protests or nonviolent resistance. Henry David Thoreau's essay ''Resistance to Civil Government'', published posthumously as '' Civil Disobedience'', popularized the term in the US, although the concept itself has been practiced longer before. It has inspired leaders such as Susan B. Anthony of the U.S. women's suffrage movement in the late 1800s, Saad Zaghloul in the 1910s culminating in Egyptian Revolution of 1919 against British Occupation, and Mahatma Gandhi in 1920s India in their protests for Indian independence against the British Empire. Martin Luther King Jr.'s and James Bevel's peaceful protests during the civil rights movement in the 1960s United States contained impo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Stanford Law Review
The ''Stanford Law Review'' (SLR) is a legal journal produced independently by Stanford Law School students. The journal was established in 1948 with future U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher as its first president. The review produces six issues yearly between January and June and regularly publishes short-form content on the ''Stanford Law Review Online''. Admissions The ''Stanford Law Review'' selects members based on a competitive exercise that tests candidates on their editing skills and legal writing ability. There is not a firm number of accepted candidates each year; recent classes of new editors have ranged from about 40 to 45. The candidate exercise is distributed to candidates late in their first year at the law school. Transfer students are also eligible for admission through the same process. Notable alumni The review's editorial board has a president, who is effectively the editor-in-chief of the publication. The current president is Daniel Khalessi. Notable ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
