|
Waiver And Forfeiture
Forfeiture and waiver are two concepts that U.S. courts apply in determining whether reversible error has occurred. Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment, surrender or abandonment of some known right or privilege. Forfeiture is the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform, etc. Per '' U.S. v. Olano'', if a defendant has waived a right, then he cannot obtain redress in appellate court. If he has merely forfeited the right, e.g. by failing to raise a timely objection, then the standard of review become plain error pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). This means that, whereas if he had raised a timely objection, the burden of proof would have been on the opposing party to show that the error was harmless error, now the burden of proof is on the aggrieved party to show that the error was plain error. Moreover, in federal cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals may or may not choose to exercise its discretion to corre ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Reversible Error
In United States law, a reversible error is an error of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of a judgment on appeal. It is an error by the trier of law (judge), or the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge if it is a bench trial), or malfeasance by one of the trying attorneys, which results in an unfair trial. It is to be distinguished from harmless errors which do not rise to a level which brings the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal. Reversible error criteria A finding of reversible error requires that one or more of the appellant's "substantial rights" be affected, or the evidence in question be of such character as to have affected the outcome of the trial. (See e.g., Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Bd. v. Crumley's, Inc.', 174 P.3d 948 (Mont. 2008).) The criteria for determining what constitutes a "substantial right" is somewhat vague however, being that it varies from case to case, each presenting a slight ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Waiver
A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege. Regulatory agencies of state departments or the federal government may issue waivers to exempt companies from certain regulations. For example, a United States law restricted the size of banks, but when banks exceeded these sizes, they obtained waivers. In another example, the United States federal government may issue waivers to individual states so that they may provide Medicaid in different ways than the law typically requires. While a waiver is often in writing, sometimes a person's words can also be used as a counteract to a waiver. An example of a written waiver is a disclaimer, which becomes a waiver when accepted. When the right to hold a person liable through a lawsuit is waived, the waiver may be called an exculpatory clause, liability waiver, legal release, or hold harmless clause. In some cases, parties may sign a "non-waiver" contract which specifies that no rights are waived, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Forfeiture (law)
In modern U.S. usage, forfeiture is deprivation or destruction of a right in consequence of the non-performance of some obligation or condition. It can be accidental, and therefore is distinguished from waiver; ''see waiver and forfeiture.'' Overview Historically, forfeiture of a convict's land and other assets followed on from conviction for certain serious offences (and thus resulted from criminal activity rather than from a failure to act). A striking illustration of the practical effects of this rule is Giles Corey’s refusal to plead, in the Salem Witch Trials, instead dying under ''peine forte et dure ' (Law French for "hard and forceful punishment") was a method of torture formerly used in the common law legal system, in which a defendant who refused to plead ("stood mute") would be subjected to having heavier and heavier stones placed upon ...''. By refusing to plead he avoided the jurisdiction of the court and thus avoided conviction and the consequent forfeiture o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Objection (law)
In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or other evidence in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. The judge then makes a ruling on whether the objection is "''sustained''" (the judge agrees with the objection and disallows the question, testimony, or evidence) or "''overruled''" (the judge disagrees with the objection and allows the question, testimony, or evidence). An attorney may choose to "rephrase" a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it. Lawyers should make an objection before there is an answer to the question. Objections in general An attorney may also raise an objection against a judge's ruling, to preserve the right to ap ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Standard Of Review
In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court (or some other appellate tribunal) in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent (stare decisis). In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation. United States In the United States, the term "standard of review" has several different meanings ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plain Error
The scope of review refers generally to the right to have an issue raised on appeal. It entails whether an issue was preserved by or available to an appellant on appeal. Scope of review is to the appellate court what the burden of proof is to the trial court. For example, in the United States, a party can preserve an issue for appeal by raising an objection at trial. Scope of review further relates to matters such as which judicial acts the appellate court can examine and what remedies it can apply. The scope of review for administrative law evolved substantially in the 1970s and 1980s. See also * Standard of review In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court (or some other appellate tribunal) in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or o ... References * {{Law-stub ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the procedural rules that govern how federal criminal prosecutions are conducted in United States district courts and the general trial courts of the U.S. government. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The admissibility and use of evidence in criminal proceedings (as well as civil) is governed by the separate Federal Rules of Evidence. Drafting and enactment The rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to its statutory authority under the Rules Enabling Act. The Supreme Court must transmit a copy of its rules to the United States Congress no later than May 1 of the year in which they are to go into effect, and the new rule can then become effective no earlier than December 1 of that year. Congress retains the power to reject the Court's proposed rules or amendments, to modify them, or to enact rules or amendments itself. Congress has rarely rejected the Court's proposed ame ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Harmless Error
In United States law, a harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary context. Evidentiary errors are subject to harmless error analysis, under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) ("Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.") The general burden when arguing that evidence was improperly excluded or included is to show that the proper ruling by the trial judge may have, on the balance of probabilities, resulted in the opposite determination of fact. In the case of ''Earll v. State of Wyoming'', the Wyoming Supreme Court distinguished between reversible error (which requires a conviction be overturned) and harmless error (which does not), as follows: [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Miscarriage Of Justice
A miscarriage of justice occurs when a grossly unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation. Academic studies have found that the main factors contributing to miscarriages of justice are: eyewitness misidentification; faulty forensic analysis; false confessions by vulnerable suspects; perjury and lies stated by witnesses; misconduct by police, prosecutors or judges; and/or ineffective assistance of counsel (e.g., inadequate defense strategies by the defendant's or respondent's legal team). So ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Constitutional Error
A constitution is the aggregate of fundamental principles or established precedents that constitute the legal basis of a polity, organisation or other type of entity and commonly determine how that entity is to be governed. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a ''written constitution''; if they are encompassed in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a ''codified constitution''. The Constitution of the United Kingdom is a notable example of an ''uncodified constitution''; it is instead written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties. Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign countries to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Invited Error
Invited error refers to a trial court's error against which a party cannot complain to an appellate court because the party encouraged or prompted the error by its own conduct during the trial. The original goal of the invited error doctrine was to prohibit a party from setting up an error at trial and then complaining of it on appeal.''State v. Pam'', 101 Wn.2d 507, 680 P.2d 762 (1984) In ''State v. Pam'', the State of Washington intentionally set up an error in order to create a test case for appeal. Since then, the doctrine has been applied even in cases where the error resulted from neither negligence nor bad faith. See, e.g., "Under the doctrine of 'invited error' a party cannot successfully take advantage of error committed by the court at his request." ''Jentick v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.'' (1941) 18 Cal.2d 117, 121 14 P.2d 343 The rule precludes a party from challenging a jury instruction if he proposed it or a similar instruction. ''Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.'' (1975) 1 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Supervised Release
Parole (also known as provisional release or supervised release) is a form of early release of a prison inmate where the prisoner agrees to abide by certain behavioral conditions, including checking-in with their designated parole officers, or else they may be rearrested and returned to prison. Originating from the French word ''parole'' ("speech, spoken words" but also "promise"), the term became associated during the Middle Ages with the release of prisoners who gave their word. This differs greatly from pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence in that parolees are still considered to be serving their sentences, and may be returned to prison if they violate the conditions of their parole. Modern development Alexander Maconochie, a Scottish geographer and captain in the Royal Navy, introduced the modern idea of parole when, in 1840, he was appointed superintendent of the British penal colonies in Norfolk Island, Australia. He developed a plan to prepare them for eventu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
