beyond reasonable doubt ,Is the law.Is this legal?
484593
It sounds like she has a very twisted understanding of "reasonable doubt".  The phrase, as you mentioned, is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means that prudent/reasonable men, after evaluating all the evidence presented, are clearly, entirely, and morally convinced of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  It is, in effect, saying "there is no doubt", but since we all make mistakes, we can only say we are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".  The evidence either adds up to guilt or innocence, or does not.  A jury can not imagine evidence to find a person guilty if there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.  That's what the prosecutor is doing here, if what you say is true and I understand it correctly.  "Reasonable doubt" is a standard that suggests evidence is lacking to convict or acquit -- NOT that reasonable persons can have it (doubt) and convict or acquit anyway.  (That is, if a jury does not have sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, they can not imagine evidence to convict.  If there was not enough evidence to find the defendant guilty, the defendant is innocent/acquitted.)\n\n\n"Reasonable doubt.  If, upon proof, there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it." -- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.  It is not "okay" to have doubt and convict anyway -- which is what the prosecutor is trying to claim, it seems.\n\nLawyers can say almost anything they want in closing arguments.  The defense should correct this misunderstanding in its closing argument.  The judge, in delivering instructions to the jury, should define reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt.  The defense should (have) requested this.\n\nIf you want legal definitions, e-mail me & I can type them out for you.\n\nIf an Appeal is made, you can mention all these concerns - whether it is with your present attorney or another.  Try to be sure, the judge instructs the jury properly.\n\n\nNOTE:  I am NOT a lawyer.\n\n(I hope this is understandable - I'm pretty tired.)\nE-mail me if I can help in any way.\n\nPeace.\n\nP.S.  The circle with the quarter shaded in sounds like an argument for the defense.  If I were the defense attorney, I might use it [repetition] and say "here's your doubt!  And if there is that much doubt, you can not convict!"  (And of course, mention the evidence lacking or against prosecution.)
361101
When a persons been arrested he is subject to search incident to that arrest. The search requires no warrant. Who did he ask for a lawyer? It's not the policeman's responsibility to provide the lawyer it's the court that does that. As far as having "grounds" he was under arrest, the officer doesn't need grounds! The search is justified because he is arrested. Whether anything was found has no bearing on whether or not the search was justified. This is the law, the Supreme Court has upheld it. We appreciate the service to our country but that has nothing do do with the crime he was arrested for.\nFurthermore since this person was arrested for filing a false report "lying" how much of his story should we actually believe?
273329
if you're talking about filing a claim, of course it's legal...strongly encourage...the more promptly you report any claim, the more credible you appear...the longer you wait, the more questionable it seems...
227429
Wow.\n\nFirst of all, are you saying that a body wire in Washington State requires judicial authorization?  If that's what you are saying, do you *know* it to be true? (if so, please explain).  It's not required in California, but I know Washington has some different laws about recording conversations.\n\nAfter reading the rest of your question (what is your question, by the way?), I'm not sure I'm seeing what you need to know.  As I read the details of what you're calling the "first P.C.", I don't see any constitutional problems with it.  It's certainly not the way I'd run a CI buy, but I don't see anything defective about it.  Probably gonna' be a good argument for a defense attorney as it relates to chain of custody for the drugs, but I don't see anything "wrong" with what you're describing here.\n\nI also don't know what a "Seatons Safe" is, so maybe that would help.\n\nI guess I can take a stab at the answer, though:\n\nAssuming probable cause (i.e., judicial authorization) *is* required for a body wire, I don't see where you've established here in your question that there's anything false in the probable cause.  \n\nHearsay is normally perfectly admissible in probable cause hearings (at least in California) and I'd be surprised if it isn't in Washington.  \n\nBut...assuming everything you said is true and accurate...\n\nOrdinarily, if the probable cause for something is found to be false (and that's a difficult thing to deal with on Yahoo Answers, without all the details...what you think of as false might only be an unfortunate turn of events that nobody could foresee), then whatever comes of that probable cause would more likely than not be tainted under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.  I don't think the hearsay issue enters into the discussion.\n\nAs for cases you can cite (note spelling), I can't help you with that.  You're really going to need an attorney to help you out with that; if you're being charged with something where you think these issues exists, you don't want to try representing yourself...there are too many finer points here for a layperson to have knowledge of.
467203
The law on this topic is very, very complicated but the key fact is that the police are allowed to use "reasonable deception" in the course of an investigation, provided that the police do not encourage the suspect or person under surveillance to do anything that he or she was not already going to do. For example, it's totally OK for the police to pose as drug dealers and allow potential customers to approach them and buy drugs, and use that act as evidence against them, but it is not OK for the police to SOLICIT the buyers. So in the case of the "are you wearing a wire" question, it is totally OK for the cop to lie and say "no" because that falls under "reasonable deception."\n\nAs for signing a contract stating that you are not a cop, or not wearing a wire, any contract made in preparation for or during an illegal act is null and void. If you hire a hit man to kill your wife and he takes your money but doesn't kill her, you can't sue him...
1018213
If what you say is true then you obviously need GOOD legal advice.  I cannot believe there are no solicitors willing to take on this case - unless your evidence is patchy - are they advising you that you DO NOT HAVE A CASE?  Or refusing to take the case?  Perhaps they don't want you wasting your money on a pointless exercise.\n\nGet your evidence in order.  Look at it hard and take away all thoughts that you CANNOT prove.  Then look at it again through the eyes of an outsider and try and see what they would think.  EVIDENCE is the be all and end all of any court case!
539197
Yes, if they have a mere suspicion and or probable cause to follow you it is perfectly legal.
277346
Anyone can sue, the question should be can the person be held for saying/writting it.  If it's true then you can't be for the simple reason it has to be false.  This is one of the reasons it's hard to sue since the person must show the statement is false, while the person defending only must show some reason that they believe it to be true.
1122506
no, its 90% inaccurate & inadmissable in a court of law. to take it could only serve against you. refuse it.
266425
You have to look at the entire pleading in context.  Unless the pleading is verified under penalty of perjury, none of the allegations can be grounds for perjury.  Furthermore, you need to look at the specific nature of the allegations and the qualifiers.  If the declaration alleges something based on "information and belief" as opposed to personal knowledge, that doesn't support a charge of perjury if determined to be false.  Finally, the phrase "believes and avers" might have a specific meaning under the laws of your state that might be unique.
327649
I come from a law background and I can tell you that if they have said personal things about you for example slander then yes. If its just hear say then no. If you have written proof that, that person has done or said it then you have a case. The only problem then is proving that, person actually written it about you. But that shouldn't be a problem.\n\nAll I can suggest is taking legal advice as they will be able to go into greater detail and explain what you can and can't do.
100354
Honestly, where do you some of you people get the ideas you get?\n\nTo the asker:  assuming everything you said here is 100% factual, and assuming you didn't leave anything out, and assuming you have *all* the facts in the first place, then no, it doesn't sound like there was any probable cause to pull you over.  \n\nHowever, here's what I suspect, because I have done this very thing:\n\nI'm the cop you and your friend drove past when he/she yelled whatever they yelled.  Evidently, your friend wanted to come to the attention of the police, so I'm generally happy to oblige.  You don't say (and probably don't know) if it was the same cop who pulled you over, but it doesn't matter...we've got radios, ya' know?  \n\nSo anyway, back to your friend who wants to be a policeman's project:\n\nWhether I take off after you or I radio to one of my partners, one of us catches up to you.  You don't signal where you should, you have a taillight out, your registration is expired, etc., etc., and that provides me probable cause to stop you.  It's quite possible, especially if you developed an attitude problem, that I will tell you the only reason you're being stopped is because of your friend, the loudmouth.\n\nThe liberal among us will not like this, I know.  However, probable cause in this state is probable cause, and the motivation behind my use of probable cause is irrelevant to your guilt or innocence.  \n\nSo if you're right, the cop was wrong and you certainly do want to talk to an attorney.\n\nIf I'm right, you got pulled over because your idiot friend brought your car to the attention of the police, and it sounds like you paid a price for that.  Choose your friends better next time you're drinking and driving.\n\nAnd no, yelling out of your car is not disorderly conduct in California.  It's a rude and stupid exercise of your right to free speech.\n\nShouting something at the police is not an indication that you're not a reasonable person, and being an unreasonable person does not provide the police with reasonable cause to pull you over.  Holy cow, if this were true I could pull people over a hundred times a day.  \n\nBeing disrespectful to the police does not qualify as disorderly conduct.  It qualifies as stupid, but stupid does not equate to probable cause to effect a detention or make an arrest.  Don't I wish.\n\nYeah, we're always making things up just to pull you over.  I routinely risk being convicted of perjury and jailed for civil rights violations just to see if you've got big hooters, are drunk, or have a little weed in your car.  Please.\n\nYou're welcome to have just about any bumper sticker you want on your car and not have to worry about getting a ticket.  First of all, like I said, we do live in the land of free speech so you can have anything you want on your bumper.  If it says "I'm plotting to kill the President," you might end up with a visit from the Secret Service, but you can't get a ticket for displaying even an obscene bumper sticker.  \n\nHanging out the window is a good indication that you're not wearing your seat belt, but I'm not sure I'm familiar with a crime called "reckless endangerment."  \n\nI'm glad showing poor judgement doesn't really qualify as cause for the police to investigate.  If it did, I would literally spend my entire day talking to people with extraordinarily poor judgement who weren't committing a crime.  I do enough of that now.\n\nAnyway, I hope the cops had a really wonderful reason for pulling you over, once your friend decided you needed to stopped.  I hope their reason is enough to get you into court and convicted, if you really were driving in violation of the drunk driving laws in this state.  Your decision to do so put a huge number of people at risk...all of whom, except yourself, would have been innocent victims of your profoundly poor
721918
Legally, No.  Does it happen?  Yes.
397586
Of course, it is.  The answer can be found in the question itself. The fact that persons threaten a lawsuit against you "using FALSE CLAIMS JUST TO GET THEIR WAY" is  illegal and the plaintiffs may be incarcerated if the defendant can prove that the plaintiffs perjured themselves in court merely to "get their way".\n\nCan you imagine the potential harm done to the defendant?  First of all there is the question of money, such as for hiring a lawyer to represent the him/her, or missing work, secondly the integrity of the accused is in doubt and last but not least the sheer torment, stress and distress the accused will experience during a trial. Even if acquitted, the integrity of the accused may never be the same as before he/she was accused.  \n\nHope this info helps.
1002460
Logical Fallacy. The best practice is to draw conclusions from irrefutable evidence (which any lawyer can tell you doesn't exist). Best not to draw conclusions at all if you can help it.
273300
In the UK it's innocent until proven guilty....beyond all reasonable doubt.
947163
"a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed" and that the person is linked to the crime with the same degree of certainty. \nIn United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer may make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant. \nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.     — Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution