|
Obstruct Justice
In United States jurisdictions, obstruction of justice refers to a number of offenses that involve unduly influencing, impeding, or otherwise interfering with the justice system, especially the legal and procedural tasks of prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice. Obstruction is a broad crime that may include acts such as perjury, making false statements to officials, witness tampering, jury tampering, destruction of evidence, and many others. Obstruction also applies to overt coercion of court or government officials via the means of threats or actual physical harm, and to deliberate sedition against a court official to undermine the appearance of legitimate authority. Legal overview Obstruction of justice is an umbrella term covering a variety of specific crimes. ''Black's Law Dictionary'' defines it as any "interference with the orderly a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction (from Latin 'law' and 'speech' or 'declaration') is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels (e.g., local, state, and federal). Jurisdiction draws its substance from international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of society. International dimension Generally, international laws and treaties provide agreements which nations agree to be bound to. Such agreements are not always established or maintained. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is exercised through three principles outlined in the UN charter. These are equality of states, territorial sovereignty and non-intervention. This raises questions of when can many states prescribe or enforce jurisdiction. The ''Lotus'' case establishes two key rules t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Process Server
Each legal jurisdiction has rules and discrete terminology regarding the appropriate procedures for serving legal documents on a person being sued or subject to legal proceedings. In the U.S. legal system, service of process is the procedure by which a party to a lawsuit gives an appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party (such as a defendant), court, or administrative body in an effort to exercise jurisdiction over that person so as to force that person to respond to the proceeding in a court, body, or other tribunal. Notice is furnished by delivering a set of court documents (called "process") to the person to be served. Service Each jurisdiction has rules regarding the appropriate service of process. Typically, a summons and other related documents must be served upon the defendant personally, or in some cases upon another person of suitable age and discretion at the person's residence or place of business or employment. In some cases, service of process may ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Sarbanes–Oxley Act
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is a United States federal law that mandates certain practices in financial record keeping and reporting for corporations. The act, , also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" (in the Senate) and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act" (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, SOX or Sarbox, contains eleven sections that place requirements on all American public company boards of directors and management and public accounting firms. A number of provisions of the Act also apply to privately held companies, such as the willful destruction of evidence to impede a federal investigation. The law was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals, including Enron and WorldCom. The sections of the bill cover responsibilities of a public corporation's board of directors, add criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Jury Trial
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Jury trials are increasingly used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in many common law judicial systems, but not all. Juries or lay judges have also been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. The use of jury trials, which evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems, has had a profound impact on the nature of American civil procedure and criminal procedure rules, even if a bench trial is actually contemplated in a particular case. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly demanded has given rise to a system in which fact finding is concentrated in a single trial rather than multiple hearings, and appellate review of trial court decisions is greatly limited. Jury trials are of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Indictment
An indictment ( ) is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offense is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use that concept often use that of an indictable offence, which is an offence that requires an indictment. Australia Section 80 of the Constitution of Australia provides that "the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury". The High Court of Australia has consistently used a narrow interpretation of this clause, allowing the Parliament of Australia to define which offences proceed on indictment rather than conferring a universal right to a jury trial. Section 4G of the '' Crimes Act 1914'' provides that "offences against a law of the Commonwealth punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months are indictable offences, unless the contrary intention appears". Canada A direct indictment is one in which the case is sent dir ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
James H
James may refer to: People * James (given name) * James (surname) * James (musician), aka Faruq Mahfuz Anam James, (born 1964), Bollywood musician * James, brother of Jesus * King James (other), various kings named James * Prince James (other) * Saint James (other) Places Canada * James Bay, a large body of water * James, Ontario United Kingdom * James College, a college of the University of York United States * James, Georgia, an unincorporated community * James, Iowa, an unincorporated community * James City, North Carolina * James City County, Virginia ** James City (Virginia Company) ** James City Shire * James City, Pennsylvania * St. James City, Florida Film and television * ''James'' (2005 film), a Bollywood film * ''James'' (2008 film), an Irish short film * ''James'' (2022 film), an Indian Kannada-language film * "James", a television episode of ''Adventure Time'' Music * James (band), a band from Manchester ** ''James'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contempt Of Court
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn (as in "to contemn a court order") and a person guilty of this is a contemnor or contemner. There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions. In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain information can constitute contempt of the court. When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judiciary Act Of 1789
The Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, ) was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article Three of the United States Constitution, Article III, Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 1: Federal courts, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide. The existence of a separate federal judiciary had been controversial during the debates over History of the United States Constitution#1788_ratification, the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Administration Party (United States), Anti-Federalists had denounced th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Preponderance Of The Evidence
In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute. It is also known as the onus of proof. The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim ''semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'', a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." In civil suits, for example, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the defendant's action or inaction caused injury to the plaintiff, and the defendant bears the burden of proving an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor for criminal cases, and the defendant is presumed innocent. If the claimant fails to discharge the burden of proof to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases, reflecting the principle that in criminal cases the stakes are significantly higher: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life itself, in addition to the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to conviction. The prosecution bears the burden of presenting compelling evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if the trier of fact is not convinced to that standard, the accused is entitled to an acquittal In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the criminal prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the cha ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Sentencing Guidelines
The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules published by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious (Class A) misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors or infractions. Although the Guidelines were initially styled as mandatory, the US Supreme Court's 2005 decision in '' United States v. Booker'' held that the Guidelines, as originally constituted, violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, and the remedy chosen was to excise those provisions of the law establishing the Guidelines as mandatory. After ''Booker'' and other Supreme Court cases, such as '' Blakely v. Washington'' (2004), the Guidelines are now considered advisory only. Federal judges ( state judges are not affected by the Guidelines) must calculate the guidelines and consider them when determining a sentence, but are not require ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
