What is the history of a defendants right to council?
139443
Look up Hugo Grotius, Father of International Law.
983801
try here:http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/home_e.shtml\n\ncanada justice system
1085634
You have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, to a jury trial, to an attorney, to not give testimony against yourself, to know what witnesses the prosucution is calling, what evidence they have against you, the right to call your own witnesses. All this assumes that you are in the USA. I have no idea what the rights are in other countries.
500068
That's a complicated question and the answer depends on the authority of your local zoning board. Is the area in the city limits or the county? What kind of zoning authority exists for that area?\n\nUsually the zoning authority is comprised of local elected officials or those appointed by the elected officials. the best place to voice your compliant is with your county commission or town council (depending on who has juristiction of the area in question) Most County Commissions and Town/City Councils have opportunities for public comment during public meetings. \n\nIf this is a true problem that is being contributed to by elected officials - the true punishment comes on voting day when the voters voice their concerns.
60115
the sixth amendment-- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.\n\nTrey would have the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
858767
The answer to this question is a bit complex.  So, I will try to explain in two sections -\n\nFirst -  The Common Law\n\nIn the English tradition of Law, there is such a thing as the "common law."  The common law refers to laws that our system of law has assumed to be true since our Founding.\n\nFor example, there is no law that says you cannot steal or kidnap or assault or murder.  These are all parts of the common law.  The common law forbids each of these actions.  It has been this way since the beginning of our regime.\n\nJudges can rely on the common law to hand down their decisions.  In a case of theft, they simply know that theft is illegal under the common law.\n\nThere is a bit of a grey area within the common law though.  The common law must be applied to each case before a judge.  A judge may encounter a case where the common law has not been used before.  For example, before the internet was huge, what if a judge heard a case of a man stealing credit card numbers/identities online?  The judge could then use the common law and apply the criminality of theft in this case even though the common law had never been applied in this way before.\n\nThere isn't much grey area, but judges have the final say on when are where to apply the common law.\n\nSecond - Judicial Activism\n\nJudicial Activism refers to judges creating "laws" by their rulings from the bench.\n\nAn example of this are the Miranda rights I am sure all of you have heard of - "You have the right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney, etc."  Basically, the things that police officers say when someone is brought into custody.  In a case before the Supreme Court, a criminal by the name of Miranda claimed that his civil rights were violated because he did not understand all of his rights when dealing the police when he was charged with his crime.  The Supreme Court agreed with him, and thus created a "law" whereby an officer making an arrest had to explicitly tell each criminal their rights when being taken into custody.\n\nThis sort of "law" does not come from the legislature but only from the ruling of the Supreme Court.  In essence, the Court created a new law.  The law has now become each person taken into custody must be explicitly told their rights.\n\nThe heart of your question is whether or not this sort of judicial behavior is right or wrong.\n\nThe long and the short of your answer is that judicial activism is wrong.\n\nI can prove this to you by a simple Platonic test.  Follow these questions and answer honestly, and you will see why.\n\nWhat does a farmer know how to do?  Plant and harvest crops.\n\nWhat does the captain of a ship know how to do?  Pilot a ship.\n\nWhat does a doctor know how to do?  Heal and preserve the body.\n\nWhat does a legislator know how to do?  Create laws.\n\nWhat does a judge know how to do?  See if a law has been broken.\n\nAt the core, each profession human beings have are directed toward a telos (Greek for "end").  If a profession acts out of its end, then foolishness occurs.\n\nWould you go to a farmer if your arm were broken?  No.\n\nWould you go to a doctor if you needed to pilot a ship?  No.\n\nWould you go to a doctor if you needed to plant a crop?  No.\n\nWould you go to a judge if you needed to create a law?  No.\n\nThe role and ultimate end of a judge is to interpret law and see if it were broken.\n\nThe art of creating law belongs to members of the legislator.\n\nAnyone who would disagree would visit a farmer if he or she was sick.
168661
I'm not sure about California laws, but in the constitution, it states that everyone has the right to a speedy due process. I don't think the judge can sit on it for a long period of time.
759434
i was a juror many moons ago and let me tell you it was a farce!\ni was approached by a defence witness and to cut a long story short she ended up serving 6 months. the girl didn't tell me anything i already know and yes she shouldn't of approached me, but i think she was desperate. she also had a 6 week old baby who was put into care for the length of her sentence. The reason for the confidentiality is so that outside influences don't cloud your judgement. the decision should be entirelly upto you, on whether you convict or not. i know that after the case my husband would've voted differently to me so if i had of talked to other people then i may of been swayed
3595
The right to cross-examine witnesses is the cornerstone of the right to confrontation. There is not much of a cofrontation without cross-examination.
103167
What you're forgetting is that tomorrow it could be you.  If you were accused of a crime, should we not give you any rights, just throw you straight in jail?  If you're just referring to people who have been convicted, which rights do you mean?  They don't have many.  You do have to remember that unless they got the death penalty, they are going to return to society some day.  You don't prepare someone for that by putting them in a hole and telling they they're not a citizen anymore.
800461
Yes.  BUt what is the nature of this document? Just a written report by the officer saying you said this? When was it written? Did you sign it? A conviction solely on your alleged (I'm assuming unsigned) admission is pretty thin evidence.  What else will the cops have? Your presence at the scene of a crime? The co-defendant's testimony?\n\nThis is a felony, so you have a constitutional right to counsel, even if you cannot afford it. Get an attorney and prepare a defense if you're not guilty.
1013407
There are two rules:  A regular old witness may invoke the 5th Amendment on a question by question basis.  If the witness opens the door to an issue (gives a self-serving explanation of an incident) he may be required to answer questions about that incident.\n\nA defendant in a criminal case does not have to take the stand.  He does not have to submit to any questioning at all.  But If He Does, he may NOT invoke the 5th Amendment - at least, not regarding the incidents he's then on trial for.
501905
The format of your questions is confusing but here is what I think you are looking for:\n\nArticle 3-Section 1 salaries of judges protected\n\n1st & 4th Amendment - right to be silent - protected\n\nArticle 4 - Section 3 talks about Treason (I don't know what you mean "for politics" however, Article 1 - Section 6 says "congressmen cannot be arrested during time the house or senate is in session" - protected\n\nSo, I think right to Appeal is a legislative/judicial procedure and  is not a constitutional protection... except it is mentioned at Article Section 2 next to last paragraph.. \n\nThanks,\nmphill56\nMichael\nhttp://expert-seo.net
162701
1. You have the right to remain silent and may refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?\n2. Anything you do or say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?\n3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?\n4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?\n5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?\n6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?\n\nIf an officer does not read you the Miranda Warning, your arrest will not be thrown out of court; however, any statements you make will not be taken in as fact of the matter and are completely off the record.  That is, if you can prove that your Constitutional rights were violated.
264170
In the event your case can not be resolved, the court will set a date for your trial. The normal method of trial in Criminal Court is a jury trial but your trial does not have to be in front of a jury. You and the state can waive or give up the right to a jury trial and try your case in front of a judge and let him or her decide your guilt or innocence. The right to a jury trial, however, may be one of the most important and fundamental rights afforded to us as citizens. That right should be waived only after careful and considered reflection on your part after many discussions with your lawyer.
898704
The city is required to present evidence that the defendant was in violation of the city ordinance prior to the defendant presenting any evidence.\n\nThe city will call their first witness and will ask questions necessary to bring out all the facts the witness has knowledge of concerning the case.  After the city attorney has asked questions, the defendant will have a right to cross-examine the witness.  During cross-examination, the defendant may not testify or argue with the witness.  At that time the defendant may only ask questions to elicit answers from the witness.  The defendant may only ask for information which deals with the issues of the violation of the ordinance.  After the defendant has completed his examination and the city has completed its examination of the first witness, the city will call their next witness.  The same procedure as to examination is followed with all of the witnesses called by the city.\n\nAfter the city has called all their witnesses they will rest their case.  At that time the defendant has a right to present evidence.  He may call witnesses and if so, he will examine them first and the city attorney will have the right to cross-examine them after the defendant's examination.  During the defendant's examination of the witness, his questions need to be stated in such a way that the witness will give the facts in his answer.\n\nThe defendant may also testify although he is not required to do so and it will not be held against him if he decides not to testify.  If the defendant testifies, he will tell what happened in his own words.  The city attorney will have the right to cross examine him and he is required to answer the city attorney's questions.\n\nAfter the defendant has completed his case and the city has completed their case, the court will make a decision.  If the defendant is found not guilty, the case is over and the defendant's appearance bond will be refunded.  If the defendant is found guilty, the court will assess punishment not to exceed the maximum authorized under the city ordinance plus court costs.If the defendant is found guilty, he has a right to appeal and receive a new trial.  In order to appeal, the defendant must post an appeal bond as set by the court.  The defendant will then have a new trial before a district judge who will make a determination of his innocence or guilt.  In a new trial the judge will make a finding on what is presented and is not bound by any finding of the Municipal Court.  If the defendant is found innocent, his appeal bond will be refunded and the case is over.  If the defendant is found guilty, the district judge will set the fine and costs.  The amount of fine and costs may be more or may be less than what the Municipal Court imposes.  From a finding of guilty in the second trial, the defendant has a right to appeal on the record to the Court of Criminal Appeals. you speaking will help put that rapist away for good! i wish you luck!
797206
Yes, this amendment states that everyone has the right to a trial by jury. this process insures that everyone will recieve a fair trial that will lead then to the correct punishment. If not for this amendment, many historical cases could have had different outcomes that would alter the way we live in the present.