does a defendant have the right of discovery?
959139
Rights of discovery are governed by your state's rules of civil and/or criminal procedure.  You didn't indicate whether its a civil or criminal case.\n\nIn a civil case, then both the plaintiff and the defendant will propound discovery requests to the other party.  These include, (but aren't limited to) Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions.  Other discovery includes the taking of depositions, both of the the plaintiff and defendant, and of potential witnesses.\n\nIn a criminal case the rules of discovery are a bit different.  Generally, the State must turn over to the defendant all of the evidence that it has, (or copies) but may make a reasonable copying charge.  In addition, the state is bound by both law and ethics to immediately disclose any exculpatory evidence that it has in its possession.\n\nFor more information on this, consult an attorney licensed in your state.  If you need an attorney, contact your local or state bar association for a referral.
508072
Yup.  Except for one small problem:  he probably waived that right during one of his first court appearances.  Standard question to a criminal defendant in a pre-trial conference is "do you waive time?" or some other equally vague phrase. \n\nThat little ambiguous phrase means "do you waive your right to a speedy trial."  Most defendants, at the advice of their lawyers, waive the right to a speedy trial to ensure that the defendant has enough time to prepare for his defense.
222658
The case is actually A03-1898 in the Minnesota Supreme Court, not the 8th circuit (which is a federal court). The full opinion is at the site below. In it, they argue that whether or not a defendant is a repeat offender for the purposes of enhancing a sentence is a finding of fact, and thus must be determined by a jury, not a judge.
738283
If the search warrant is a reality, meaning if it exists, yes. You (the owner) can ask to see a copy of it and they must produce one or every thing they found is inadmissible in court. But you don't have to see it before they enter your home.
454510
Yes.\n\nRemember that piece of paper that said\nPeople of the State of _________ (Plaintiff)\nv.\nYOU (Defendant)\n\n(may have been City of or Village of or whatever)\n\nyou probably pled guilty in agreement that this owuld be the sentence.
116579
Only if there is a standing warrent issued by a judge.  Otherwise, SUE SUE SUE!!! :D
976415
I am of the opinion that the presiding judge is well within his right to record a fiding exparte and it is not in violation of the principle of natural justice, so long as the respondent was given due notice of the proceedings according him an opportunity to be heard. The principle of natural justice does not mean that no order can be passed without hearing the parties concerned. It only requires that the parties before the forum should be given an opportunity to being heard. If the respondent had any difficulty in appearing before the judicial forum, like paucity of funds or threat to life, that is an entirely different matter. There were several options before him to meet such situations. Paucity of funds cannot be a valid ground for non-appearance. It is upto him to fend for himself to protect his own interests. I am sure there are provisions in the law prevailing in the USA, as it is in many other countries, for free legal aid for the indigent citizens. He could have availed of free legal aid. As regards the intimidation, which purportedlty detained him from appearance, it was open to him to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner and a copy of the complaint, if produced before the judge, would have weighed in his favour, for further adjournemetnt of his case. \n\nNow, that the matter has come to an end, before the learned judge, he has got two options. One is that he file a petition for review before the very same judge who passed the order and the second one is preferring an appeal before the appeallate authoruity. You may do this through a legal aid forum, if any available.
2913
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905\n"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."\n\nJenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox,  456 2nd 233\nPro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.\n\nMaty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)\n"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants.  They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end.  Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."\n\nPicking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals\nThe plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept".  Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."\n\nGood Luck
1031573
You are not the first person that has happened too...no, you didn't get a fair trial.  You can talk to the "head" judge...the chief justice..or whatever they call him where you are.  It's a Constitutional right..you are guaranteed a fair trial, and if the judge didn't hear half of the testimony....well, that's not fair then, is it...whether you won or lost.  You could call the (shudder) ACLU....I can't believe I just recommended that....
679904
No.\n\nThe location of an attorney while reading or researching has nothing at all to do with what happens at trial.
744861
Ordinarily, no. But it depends upon the law of the state in which you're looking. \n\nSome states may, under certain circumstances, make public wills that are entered into surrogate's courts...and certainly if there's litigation over a will, the will may be entered as evidence in the trial, and thus become a public document.
54770
Yes. District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals\n\nWEEKS v. U S , 245 U.S. 618 (1918)\n\nThis was a prosecution under the Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, upon a charge of shipping an article of food in interstate commerce in circumstances making the shipment a violation of the act. The information contained two counts, both charging that the article was misbranded-one because it bore a false and misleading label, and the other because it was offered for sale as lemon oil when in truth it was an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass. In the District Court there was a conviction upon both counts, and the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction as [245 U.S. 618, 620] to the first count and affirmed it as to the second. 224 Fed. 64, 139 C. C. A. 626. The judgment upon the latter is all that is brought here for review.\n\nIn the Circuit Court of Appeals the view was expressed [245 U.S. 618, 623] that intent was not an element of the offense charged in the second count and therefore that it was immaterial whether the representations of the salesman had the sanction of the defendant. Complaint is now made of this. But the question is not in the case, the view expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals not being essential to an affirmance of the judgment. The District Court had expressly instructed the jury that to hold the defendant responsible criminally by reason of such representations it must appear, and appear beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were made by his authority. The record before us does not show that the defendant objected to the submission of this question to the jury in this way; neither does it purport to contain all the evidence. The verdict therefore must be taken as conclusively determining that the representations were made with the defendant's sanction.\n\nJudgment affirmed
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.
696836
In essence, the rule says that any evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights cannot be admitted as evidence in the trial, unless one of several exemptions apply. The main controversy in this area is that guilty people can get off when there is no other evidence to convict. However, I think it is well worth letting a few guilty people go free to protect the rights granted in the constitution. If the rule did not exist, there would be little reason for the cops to follow the constitution, since their illegal evidence would still get the job done.
775408
Not at this phase, although some digging may uncover it.\n\nif a real charge is to be filed, that person must appear
543232
You can either do a motion for discovery, where the other side has to turn over evidence that they intend to use at trial and evidence that tends to show your innocence as well.  Any such evidence they must turn over if they have it in their possession or if they have control over it.  However, I assume this is a criminal case since it involves a 911 call, you can also use the powers of the court to file what is called a subpoena Duces Tecum (spelling?) and have it served upon the 911 dispatch agency to provide you with the tape.
105825
Probably 2 years from discovery, but you should call an attorney, in your area to make sure.  We live in 50 different countries, all under one umbrella called the USofA.\nAnd so, the laws are different in each state, and each county for that matter.\n\n\nBest to ask a lawyer.