Criminal Defense

Table of Contents

A criminal surrounded by India be holding defense minister post?

 George Fernandes,who went underground after trying to bomb the railway tracks during the Emergency period of 1970’s,ironically be given the post of defense minister, when the BJP was ruling party,between 2000-2004.

It seem the mandate of the people was for the criminal, who seem to be acting lie a saint.


atleast he did a good employment…
and he did not run the risk of pressing the red button and initiate a nuclear war while having a climax during a bl0wj0b within the oval office..
and he IS a saint otherwise, he would have smoked out the unharmed pakistan like US did to Iraq..

By the way, Jyoti Basu be also accused of trying to blow up Nonapukur tram depot. he held the post of West Bengal CM for 20+ years…. that is how it is; luckily Jyoti Basu never looked resembling a saint, more like the devil’s lawyer.

A query for criminal defense attornies?

Regarding someone has been convicted of a sexually stern crime in CA, who has finished their sentence and be brought back to the county jail as a civil detainee for a audible range. The DA has filed a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) petition.

The civil attorney appointed the inmate is unfolding him to agree to a plea deal and be sent to the state hospital for 5 or 6 years, rather than shift before a jury and stand the chance of person committed for the rest of his life. He’s already done his 8 year sentence.

Who is to say that after 5 to 6 years at a state hospital that he will automatically be released after completing that sentence? Secondly, the system can’t institutionalize every single SVP for the rest of their lives. I muse this is fearmongering.

My question is: what is the likelihood that an inmate could really be institutionalized for the rest of his vivacity if he went ahead and allowed a jury to determine his fate? And also, what is the chance that if he took the plea he would be released without further inquiry and hearings after serving another 5 years?


We’re trying to hang on to a civilized country here. We’re trying to develop a purpose here aside from reproduction and survival. What do you mean a state hospital. He should be imprisoned for at smallest another 15 years.

An aggressor cannot claim the right of private defense within criminal law’.explain the stateme.?


If you strike the othe chap first you cannot claim to have be defending yourself.

if you throw the first punch you can’t say you be defending yourself against an attack.

Right to self defense has very controlled scope in criminal decree, although criminal jurisprudence allows it but with limited use to safeguard the person or property to the extend it only disable the perpetrator from inflicting harm to the person or the property, what is issue of disability depends from case to case, but what should be minimum force that disables the criminal has to be applied, as far an aggressor cannot claim this right as he/her will be considered an offender not champion. Indian Penal Code section 96 -106 clearly provide scoop & conditions that are applicable for such a right of private defense, read these section & you will know the extend & scoop of this right Source(s): I am a Lawyer.

Generally, one who initiates an altercation has no right to use force in his own defense during that altercation. However, the aggressor can “regain” his right to use self-defense surrounded by two ways: 1) An aggressor who, in good confidence, effectively removes himself from the altercation, and communicates to the other person his desire to remove himself, regains his right to use self-defense, and 2) If the subject of the initial aggression suddenly escalates a “minor” altercation into one involving deadly force and does so without giving the aggressor the destiny to withdraw, the aggressor may use force in her own defense. Source(s): I’m a legal representative too

Are nearby any pro bono attornies contained by missouri for criminal defense?

The constitution states you have the right to an attorney, but when the public defender turns you down and you don’t own money; where do you get an attorney? This is for an innocent immature lady.


OK, let me try to bring back this straight your daughter who was raped at age 16 concieved a child from that rape and the guy who did it is was an officer after that committed suicide but before doing so got your daugter pregnant a second time (or did she hold twins) now she draws death benefits from ss because their daddy (the rappist sicidal cop) is in a minute dead. Now yor daughter is preggers again and her babies daddies son (isn’t this normally the brother of her infant?) and she is being charged with a felony that she didn’t commit (what exactly??). ANd somehow the chief of police is involved contained by hiding some sort of evidence and now work somewhere else (is what he hid falsified evidence against you daughter or proof of the rape which I guess she doens’t entail since she is already drawing deah benifits for thier dead daddy) Now this amount that she draws for ss for these kids is enough that she doesn’t qualify for the public supporter to help her and…
now what you want to know is since she have no money (usually enough and don’t normally count ss for the kids anyway) to qualify what oblige is there to her??
Well, if I got it right next I am sorry to tell you that your poor dear daughter is very much out of luck unless you can come up near enough to hire a lawyer. Good luck (I have a sneaking suspicion that that you are not capable of such a thing though mete out this is one really messed up situation I have heard of smaller amount complicated plots on soap operas) sincerely hope it all works out for the best.


The US Constitution doesn’t directly say you are entitled to an attorney. The US Constitution say you have a right to a fair trial, and the right to due process. The courts, through a series of decision, have decided that when face with a criminal offense which will result in a loss of lack of restrictions, (in other words, most felonies and many misdemeanors), a being cannot be refused an attorney based on inability to repay for an attorney.

That said, if one has a job, later in many cases the Court will determine that a entity has the ability to earnings an attorney. The person involved would have have to submit financial information to the Court for the determination of counsel. If that information shows that they do not meet the Court’s determination that they are unable to hire counsel, next they do not qualify for a public defender.

You did not say what the defendant is charged beside: If she is charged with an offense for which it is not the custom to levy a jail sentence, next the standard for a public defender may be correct.

I would suggest she contact her local or state bar association and ask for a referral for a criminal defense attorney. Source(s): 10+ years surrounded by the legal profession.

You need to construct an appeal to the Judge stating that you have no attorney. It is the Judge in the state of MO that assigns a public defender…if the intercede has already done that but the assigned attorney has refuse to work with you, you need to MAKE SURE SHE SHOWS UP for he subsequent court date and tell the Judge. If she doesn’t show up she is up sh*t creek.

Your phrasing makes me judge that there is something missing here. Generally, the public defender doesn’t turn down or adopt anyone. The court appoints the PD and that is the end of it. So, I suspect that you go elsewhere, like legal aid, or that no charges are on the other hand pending and you went to the PD prematurely, or something approaching that. Give a little more detail and maybe you can return with a reasonable answer.

Can I own your direction on the following criminal defense scenario?

Defendant, while at work, wrote checks to herself totaling $7,500. She is caught and charged with grand larceny (& forgery).
DA presents its armour to judge saying she wrote checks totaling $9,500. The extra 2 august is the insurance deductiable of the employer’s theft insurance. We don’t know if DA knows this or its a mistake on his section. So technically, defendant did NOT write checks totaling 9.5g. Does defendant have technicality issue which could get satchel dismissed? Or what should defendant (her lawyer) do that will result in the most beneficial situation for her?


Her legal representative should point that out to the judge but if she wrote the cheques then she should plead guilty right away.if she tries to use this as a defense to hold her case dismissed…she may get a harder cost.

A mistake surrounded by the amount will not make the charges go away. If they are dropped they will be refiled near the correct amount. She should dispute the amount. This is important because she will be required to make restitution for what she in reality stole.

If she stole 9500 and the company paid a 2000 deductible, the original charge is correct.

The state has to prove what they plead. That money that at the end of the state’s case, when the state have presented all the evidence they have, and slipshod to prove 9.5k, the defense attorney should move the court for a directed verdict of not guilty.

If the case is dismissed up to that time trial they can just refile it with the correct amount.

Gool Luck

Can the accuse be charged beside perjury if his defense against a criminal charge is proven wrong?

 Charged with bouncing check law, he countered that he did not own the signature and the check. He be acquitted though for lack of concrete evidence that he one-sidedly received the demand letter. He be ordered to pay the check value,official interest from demand date and all permitted costs incurred by the plaintiff.


In some cases, but the accused would have to deceitfully testify after being sworn in on the stand.

dude, they aren’t going to tolerate you off.
either earnings the judgement or ignore it and take your likelihood.
forget about going back into court.

CJA /Criminal Defense Investigator?

 I enjoy this type of work, but I am having a extremely rock-hard time finding work. I don’t have a pd license, because I have not be with a firm for 5 years, nor am I a retired law enforcement officer. I hold roughly 2 years experience. Right I now I am just looking for contractual work. Any investigators out at hand that can point me in the right direction?


i dont know but i need assistance maybe you can give me some tips

Could a criminal/thug use the “god give us free will” defense?

 Let’s say someone walks up to you and points a gun at you. They read out “If you don’t give me your wallet, I’m going to shoot you. I’m not telling you what to do, you may freely choose to do as you please, I’m a moment ago telling you what’s gonna happen if you don’t impart me your wallet”.

So, if you give this person your wallet contained by order to be saved from human being shot, is it a fact that you gave it to him of your own free will, or did you bestow it to him because he coerced you to do so?


if someone pointed a gun to my head and said give me your money, i would. but i would bring in it very clear that this is a gift, he’s not robbing me.

if he wants my money bad enough to threaten my time, he can have it.

No. Free will will get you reformatory time if you’re caught. You go the opposite route, insanity defense, you did not hold the mental capacity to understand the outlook of your actions. Let’s say neither do has free will in your interview. The “thug” is hallucinating and has no idea of what they are doing and the subject is being coerced.

anyone with partially a brain that barely functions knows to purely give the wallet….

free will …. they guy gave the wallet because he didnt want to get shot but the guy near the guy could have shot him anyway the guy with the wallet made his choice and took the coincidence that the guy with the guy would not shoot him that would not be a defence fot the guy next to the guy because he was in the wrong his free will be to commit a crime… it would not hold up in court =) He was person a thug and somewhere in his life his granma to told in the order of right and wrong…

That’s not exactly free will when a gun is pointed at your skipper – it is armed robbery for which you get accused of a crime not a “sin”.

Of Course

Because with freewill comes resposnisbility for choices

If you choose to reject God, Hell awaits

If you choose to break the directive, Jail awaits

I don’t think it will help

You do anything you can to survive, It is more far-reaching than money. Money doesnt mean anything.

Except the criminals enjoy to answer to a higher power

Can I tell you about something God did of his own free will? We chose Hell for eternity when we go our own way and became God’s enemy. But he loved us so much, that he made a way of escape! He died for you and me on the cross. We broke his Law, but He paid our fine! He can immediately forgive us of all our sins. All we have to do to receive his let off, is Believe he died for us, and trust him alone to save us. He loves you more than anyone else can! You can come to him just as you are. Why don’t you read the gospel of John contained by the New Testament? It has some wonderful promises in it!

No, newly like no one can use that argument. Source(s): Atheist.

You mean to read out that hell is the gun.

But you should know something about God.

God is Love.

Love can’t be forced on to anybody, it can only be freely official.

If love were forced, it would become slavery, and would contradict love itself!

Now, you would say, that a loving God would of late give up on the rejected love and let humanity walk its way.

But this state is called hell. Hell is an unnatural state specifically completely free of God, that is, completely free of love.

God cannot stop anybody from going to hell if he chooses, but pleads with humanity similar to a desperate lover: “We were meant for respectively other.”


That is silly !

Criminal don’t think similar to that. By the way if people want to progress to the homo section they don’t need you to suggest it

The existence of coercion and duress do trump the whole free will canard. Good show.

Free will is not at gun point.

God gives us free will because he uses no Gun. Source(s): Catholic

it be the criminals free will to take the wallet in the first place ….he didnt enjoy too!

No, duress is not free will

Gunpoint is not free choice, if it is later I don’t know what coercion is. Free will is truly having the option to not do something, no strings attached.

Second, free will can’t be used as an argument by anyone who does not know your intention. Thus the travel case for religion/God designing free will and man/human laws on free will are different. To illustrate: there’s a difference between a really poor man stealing bread because he has no other path to live, and a relatively poor man who steals for convenience or because he doesn’t want to work hard. Both are punishable by human standards, but God would forgive the first case.

To give some detail: Under Islamic law, a ruler may not imprison anyone who steals out automatically when hunger forces him to such an act. It is the ruler’s job to provide for his nation, and if people have begin stealing, the highest authority in the state and anyone else responsible for that man’s unfinished needs must abdicate his seat and own someone worthier elected, because crimes are usually a sign of bad governance. The man who stole the bread/food would be guiltless. This only applies to chief needs, obviously; not stealing gold ingots and silver.

Edit: Response to Asker’s comment on C’s answer:

Are you seriously equating a carrot and stick situation with a gunpoint situation? Do you not see the irony of having a life-or-death choice on one mitt, and stating it’s the same as the tactic every teacher uses for their student, every establishment for their force, every government to burn out corruption? Surely you appreciate the difference!

Even if you don’t – please re-read my original post. I did say aloud that a crucial difference between God-made free will and man-made free will is intention. Man has no way of knowing the intention of the guilty – he can solely work with what he can prove. If proven guilty, so be it. It doesn’t matter if his intention be noble if it can’t be proven. Whereas God knows and rewards a man for his intention alone, righteous movements following the intentions are further rewarded 10 times over. That is the Islamic system of rewards.

Punishment is much milder. Even with intention and action following it, you are not automatically thrown surrounded by hell. Each negative deed merits one denial point, and each positive deed merits 10 points. The reward is easier, bigger and a far more unadulterated possibility than the penalty. Even a non-believer gets rewards, even compassion to animals merits rewards. A smile to weary traveller is rewarded. You tell me if that’s an amply tolerant system.

Criminal defense insurance?

 Is there a company that offers insurance for criminal defense? More specifically, for a coach or league board branch. The coach’s insurance I have seen simply covers liability.


Depends on the crime.

There is such coverage as “abuse or molestation defense”. It only covers the official defense, not any monetary award if you’re found guilty. It’s only available within certain professions, such as teachers or coaches who work next to kids, because there are a lot of false accusation.

Besides that, there’s “board legal liability” coverage, but that doesn’t cover DELIBERATE criminal acts, close to murder, or robbery, etc.

For the most part, the best insurance against needing to salary for a criminal defense lawyer, is staying honest.

Defense criminal?

i need some info on a defense criminologists but it got to be a site because i gotta print it out


Here’s a site that have many criminal defense articles including a recent one where DNA evidence help prove a wrongfully convicted man innocent.…

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)Largest US organization of defense attorneys. Generally advocates for legislation and court rules to protect defendants. Magazine, projects, issues … – 59k – Ca
Why can’t you look up sites? Power issue? Lazy? Both?

DID YOU KNOW Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense within criminal cases involving Mexican’s?

 DID YOU KNOW: Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense in criminal cases involving Mexican nationals?Did you know that Mexico have NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. contained by spite of agreements to do so? According to the L.A. Times, Orange County , California is home to 275+ gangs with 17,000 member; 98% of which are Mexican and Asian. Did you know: Immigrants from Mexico and other non-European countries can come to this country and get preferences in job, education, and government contracts? Corporate America have signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should win special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon, Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more.


Why do some people say that this dislike to immigration has nothing to do next to ethnicity or race but rather roughly speaking legality?

GT is got three thumbs up for his remark. Sasha Ann have three thumbs down for saying this is not a question but propaganda.

Is it in the order of legality? ; )

did you know: this isn’t a question and propoganda

Yes and they safeguard it by saying we have the release penalty and they do not extridite to countries who have it.

Wouldn’t Uncle Sam do the same for you?

It is a shame isn’tit.

Just another reason that our Governemnt should be ENFORCING it’s immigration law.
If you are ILLEGAL, then you should be deported.

I did not know that appreciation for the info.

I hold it that you do not live near the border, some of your information is incorrect. Howevertheir are ways to get looked-for persons out of Mexico for almost any crime. You only hold to know the right people.

Did you know that if you use a gun contained by self defense when a criminal is more or less to massacre you, Obama will prosecute?

 … YOU! That’s right, that’s the law he voted on, to PROSECUTE THE VICTIM! Well, if he can’t get adjectives the guns by confiscating them from the American’s, he’ll have to prosecute you when his terrorist friends come for you and your family! Look it up … http:/ and also…
These are things he’s put forth within the Senate and to the United Nations. I’m sure he hasn’t mentioned them.……
God Bless America!


Sadly, your two links don’t work.

Can we verbs from this that you are talking shite?

Obama is slowly nutering American’s right to protect themselves. I personally don’t believe that he is doing it planned, but is simply misguided in his judgement.

Obama is too concerned with individual the first black president that he is missing the big picture…

I don’t care if I go to prison forever. You rob me, I’m shooting your ***. Nothing’s scarier to a crook than that chink chink nouns a shotgun makes.

I dream up you’ve been taken in by the medium, the less guns in america, the better. McCain is a geriatric decrepid weak man.Deal with it.


Not individual a moron, but a heavily armed moron. Now that’s dangerous.

Grow up – and stop being stupid

Wow that makes me want to vote for him! NOT!


Both your links do not work

I was attacked contained by Orlando, Fl.

Thus why I now carry a gun.


I’m so glad your party is on the track out

Yes he will prosecute all the NAZI
And he will send you to JAIL

Thats what you deserve Source(s):

I’d be interested to know why American politics seems to be based on hysteria. Many of you come across to cite God left right and centre, but later you want to carry guns and shoot people.
What happen to Turn the other cheek, Thou shalt not kill etc. It makes me really pleased to be British. I’m sure I’ll acquire some ranting response, but I’d actually like to know how things contained by the US have landed up approaching they have.

I know! I had an argument with my political science trainer about this! He asked if someone was within my house, would I shoot them. I said of course I would. He called me a murderer blah blah blah and what if the robber be only getting the television. It is ridiculous. If my President isnt going to protect me, I am going to own to protect myself.

Do you focus that the self-defense decree is over-protecting the criminals?

Say, If you had a million dollar in a house and two ancestors are stealing it and taking off as you go into your house. Do you really want to follow the regulation and call the police/run after them since they are leaving beside your property? or do you shoot their heads off and protect your a million dollar?


Your grammar is hard to follow. I’m not sure what you are asking.

I would run over them and tell the police that the guys jump in front of my car while I be driving on my lawn. They would immediately budge to the morgue. Sorry. I work too hard for what I’ve got and it’s not much.

The guns are for your protection…not necessarily for your possesions protection. Shooting their head off? You can shoot them here in Texas but I don’t feel it would be right to try and kill them. Just shooting at them if they are unarmed is enough to brand most people flee.

i would feel similar to shooting them. but i dont think stealing deserves dying. if you have a million dollar home your are probably paying for some honest insurance anyway.

We bend over backwards within this country for our citizens. We don’t want any of them to be punished unless we’re absolutely sure they’re guilty.

It’s called “freedom”. You know, the undamaged “presumption of innocence” thing…

You beckon police and attempt to detain them. You don’t kill them.

Do you suppose the insanity defense is abused today by criminals?

 do you think the insanity defense is abused today by criminals? if so, who do you think is at glitch the lawyers or the actual criminals?


Of course, scumbag attorneys will do anything to get their criminal clients a go past. Here’s a thought: I wonder how the use of the insanity defense tracks with the onset of DNA carrying out tests. With DNA at the forefront, I’m surprised anyone is stupid enough to commit a violent crime since it’s so much easier to prove guilt. What I’m thinking is that beside the evidence right in front of a perp and his attorney, they see the evidence is overwhelming so they go insanity defense.

studied the issue in the early eighties and well-read that juries will rarely adopt this defense. it is a lawyer’s last resort and a real longshot, insane or not. the jury usually do not perfectionism about those who plead “guilty by reason of insanity.” the convict almost everytime, particulary for murder.

Florida criminal defense tenet firm – the best florida criminal defense regulation firm?

 Can someone tell me the best florida criminal defense law firm. There are frequent criminal defense law firms near florida that we can find, but between them where on earth can i find the best florida criminal defense law firm?


As you know, there are plentiful florida criminal defense law firm, but for me the best florida criminal defense law firm is David J. Joffe.

Florida Criminal Defense Attorney, David J. Joffe, focuses on the defense of white collar crimes.

You can refer to this site to know more more or less David J. Joffe (florida criminal defense law firm):


🙂 Source(s): florida criminal defense law firm:


There are too tons to name. Try

Four broad category of criminal defenses that our permissible system recognize?

 What are the four broad categories of criminal defenses that our legal system recognize? I can’t find this anywhere and I need it for a criminal justice broadsheet. I haven’t received the book yet from amazon. HELP!!


Here’s a link for the 57 category of criminal defense, but the 4 main themes would be insanity, self defense, innocence, and procedural.

(Although I must come clean the “Twinkie” defense on the list sounds fun!)

There are more than 4 so you own to choose from these main. Insanity or Mental Disorder, Automatism, Intoxication, Self- Defence, Duress.


diminished capacity

self defense


Have nearby be any Christian Groups/Churches that enjoy compensated for a criminal defense for a x-ian standing trial?

 A friend and I are having a debate. I am wondering, are there any incidents of any religious group, preferably Christian, paying for the criminal defense of a individual who is on trial for any criminal activity (preferably murder)? An example could be that someone in a Church Congregation be brought up on murder charges and the Church they belong to believed they were innocent so they paid for the legal representative? I am betting they have but am having difficulty finding examples. The more examples you could provide, the better. I would be really appreciative.

The singular one that comes to mind is when the Nation of Islam was paying for MJ lawyers

I don’t know about murder, but I know a member (small business owner) of the church I attended growing up be being sued, and the church was helping him money his legal bills because of the nature of the tenet suit.

I doubt a Christian church would support a murderer unless they thought he wasn’t guilty. They are usually advocates of justice.

“> Well first of adjectives God changes people so resembling at our church when people come with any type of problems we try to relieve out

History and officially recognized defense to criminalact?

What does history show about the use of insanity as a legal defense to criminal act?

History have shown that even sane persons after committing a crime, plead as insane to escape punishment.

That it is possible and does happen.
That doesn’t mean the perp get to walk free though.

It is often misused too.

“> Read here.



I be looking for adjectives criminal cases similar to my husband self defense valise can u relief?

 A man with a weapon was on our porch starting an argument beside my husband and basically the man got kill in the process


loads and loads of missing info my dear. Sounds approaching you are hiding A LOT. Lawyer up if you haven’t already, get your facts straight and gather as oodles witnesses as possible. Source(s):…

Depending what that man’s intentions be with a weapon on your property. If your spouse was within fear of his life, and he be being threatened then this human being going over there had the intetion to do injure. Make sure to get a good criminal attorney and do not clutch a plea bargain. If your spouse was defending his enthusiasm and the life of his family. stay strong.

Sounds like there are profusely of missing facts between “starting an argument” and “got killed within the process.” Hint hint: Those missing facts will be critical to a self-defense claim.

You don’t give a lot of detail, so it’s especially hard for anyone to find similar cases.

You would be best advised to consult a advocate if you haven’t already.

Get a fuller story. Self defense will pas if and only if…
1. The man pointed the gun at him contained by a manor that would suggest he was about to fire.
2. The man said overtly that he was going to hurt/kill him, this has to be as clear as “I am going to destroy you” not any sort of insinuation.

In order to be self defense the slaughter must be because the killer believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the kill had the will and ability to shoot or seriously harm the killer or someone close to him (IE, you) I can’t stress “beyond a adequate doubt” enough; there can’t be even a shred of possibility that the encounter wasn’t going to wrap up in one of you dead.

Your story sounds rather indefinite. What state did this happen in? I assume if this happen in Florida your husband has a better arbitrariness at beating the rap than if it were to take place in California per se.

I want a internet article concerning a criminal trial which includes the use of affirmative defenses , etc.?

 r can include hearsay testimony, privledged testimony, plaease back, i dont know where to find one.


I will be starting a criminal defense imperative firm soon. What financial software do you suggest?

I have heard to carry Quick Books. Why is that? Is there a particular Quicken that I would want to capture? Like Quicken Professional? Or would the regular one suffice?

“> Quickbooks (the business version of Quicken) is awesome and very user friendly.


If a gun wield criminal be in the region of to shoot your loved one could you shoot them surrounded by self defense?

Now what if it was your innocent dog that this criminal was almost to shoot could you protect your dog by shooting the criminal

I HOPE SO ..Animal should be protected by their owner …If not why have a dog if you cannot protect it like it would protect you
Anyone who say no is very cold and selfish


Yes, you can shoot them but you may still stand trial unless you own lots of witnesses, can prove they were in reality going to shoot, etc.

Probably not and to be honest, I believe that’s fair. Pets are “property” regardless of how much a part of the house you feel they are. Dogs cannot testify in court, cant sue, and cant obtain jobs in a multitude of areas.

Call me cold and uncharitable if you dare, but if you want to consider your dog as a person, why do you OWN it?

Yes. I construe that refers to bystander interference. If you are able to help minus any harm to yourself, then yes you can.


Depends where you live,if you are contained by your home etc.

It would be your duty to shoot them, whether it was a personality or a dog they were aiming at.

It is the duty of every citizen to be the first line of defense against criminals.

He’s get a gun out, he’s meat.
I don’t have to tell the police who he be aiming at.

I like your answer college!!

You win my vote…

Dogs and Humans are on a different “legal” level.that’s like comparing apples to oranges..

if he’s a gun weilding criminal and shooting your dog you have every foundation to beleive your life was also contained by danger. I would think you would be permissible.

Legally you can do this only if the criminal has already gain access to your house, and is committing the act inside your house. Many states now own a shoot the burglker law, which means that the imperative acknowledges that the burgler isn’t in your home to do anything suitable.This situation with the dog is a very graynouns, you still could be brought up on charges by an over zealous DA.

Without any hesitation in my mind. I live within Canada and I own many guns including handguns. If some onebe threatening me or a member of my family. Even my dog. I would shoot them right between the eyes. It may nouns cold blooded but if this person is wielding a gun intent on doing bodily impair they deserve what they get.(a bullet in the forehead)
I don’t reckon guns should be used in this fashion but hey nearby you are.

Of course, who do you muse he would shoot next?

College your answer is the best one here 🙂

The law are so sticky you have to be careful… but “you did disquiet for you life” could work….

You hold never watched a human die. A dogs life is not as impressive as a human life, even if the human is dumb-***. I like dogs and would protect the dog, probably if I have to, I would shoot to wound to prevent the dog from being killed. Just don’t ever put an animals existence over human life, unless it is someone like a child molester or a wacky gunman, then you can shoot em up.

If someone be about to kill your dog, I assume they own the means to do it with (like a gun). Definitely shoot them, and shoot to wipe out. Only, when the police show up, just say the gun be pointed at you instead of Fido. It will make things so much easier.

And trust me, most cops would be happy to believe you no business what the case. Any scumbag that goes around massacre animals isn’t likely to be someone loved by police. They might even suggest to you “You feared for your time, right?”

Some so-called “people” actually behave worse than animals. Don’t believe me? Go look in your nearest inner-city ghetto.

Legally .. it depends on ur local law .. in some countries, even bloodbath for self defense can get you into a lot of trouble .. n if they go and get to know that the guy only wanted to shoot the dog and not you (if that is the case), then u r sure to get hold of lots of years in jail 🙁

Ethically .. butchery is evil, but in your case its for a angelic cause .. n any evil for a good grounds is always forgiven 🙂

Are you saying we should not have a dog unless we are prepared to murder for it, that’s a bit extreme.

Kill a person to save a dog?
No, i.e. not something you can do, You would go to jail.
If a creature killed your dog, you could not kill him or her or you would stir to jail.
Emotionally it might be the best choice, but the law say that people are more important than pets.

Just make sure you Kill the son of a _itch
Dead men can not talk
Get them out of our Country
Keep American Safe

no but i describe u what u can do, u can dive in front of the dog and get the bullet within you then u can shoot him in self defense

If a personage beside a criminal history uses a endorsed firearm (for home defense), what will arise?

Scenario: John is temporarily living with Steve (his brother-in-law) and his family. John have a criminal record and did a short strecth at the Graybar Hotel. Steve legally owns a shotgun. In a home defense situation, can John use the shotgun for defending the own flesh and blood and not face trouble with the Law?


No, as a felon John is irrelevant to possess firearms.*

depending on the law surrounded by the State where ” john” is living circumstances could be different,but technically anyone beside a criminal history is not suppose to be in possession of a fire arm. This is a violation of their probation/parole agreement. But the biggest entity though is they would want to know why ” john ” was living in a house where on earth there was a set fire arm in the first place. So they may ask some tough questions around why they where living in the house within the first place but given the circumstance they may and I say “may” not revoke johns probation/parole.

Probably would be charged beside possession of a fire arm by a convicted felon but hey I am sure the judge and or jury would take this into consideration and own some leniency and time served would be better than being dealt a extermination sentence.

He would probably be no billed by the Grand Jury on using a gun for protection but John would probably be indicted on possession of a firearm by a felon. Then probably reduced to a misd. or something along that line. Source(s): 15 yrs Law Enforcment

John is past the worst if itsdefinitelydefense…. depending on where he lives.

As long as there is a witness that he defended himself i think he shouldn’t catch in trouble (A witness who’s not a member of the family). Source(s): Future Law Student.

Can John use the gun to protect his family and not face trouble beside the law? If John is a convicted felon whose civil rights have not be restored then the answer is no. John possessed the gun around the point in time where on earth he holds it. It is illegal for John, as a convicted felon, to possess guns. Therefore, he COULD face trouble next to the law..

snuff them all, let god sort them out Source(s): devineinsperation

If the firearm is legally owned, he should be fine as long as adjectives other requirements for home defense are fulfilled. He may have his background brought up at a trial, but it really shouldn’t concern in this instance. This is especially true since his previous conviction must not have be a felony since he owns the firearm legally.

If GITMO is official and fiesta, why keep on more than 5 years for the first trial or defense of suspected criminals?


Because they are not criminals. They are enemy combatants.

They should consider themselves fortunate. If it were the other route around heads would be sawed off. Your final three questions are loaded and ignorant. Sounds approaching you care more for those who would take great pleasure contained by murdering your family in front of your eyes or blow up a pizza parlor full of innocents than you do for the unadulterated victims.

they are not US citizens and should not have duplicate rights.

LOL GItmo.

USA fears the courts and runs when the legality of its crimes is reviewed, even by its own biased judges and soldiers compensated by Bush to lie and contrive a reason for the crimes. The USA have degraded into a cabal of liars, invaders, thugs and criminals. Imagine the mafia in control of a nation. The USA lawyers, doctors and magistrates should be ashamed…but they are too frightened to be rational. Cowards and crooks, from coast to coast.

Ignorance of the statute a defense to criminal liability?

 true or false and why?


big timefictional

False. It is your civic duty to know the law of the area you are in.

False. The doctrine is known as ‘ignorantiajurisnon excusat’; ie. ignorance of the law does not excuse. This is made transparent on policy grounds; that is. the law cannot travel document ignorance as a defence, otherwise accused person’s will argue ignorance to avoid liability, even if they have the knowledge of the law.

In a criminal trial is it wrong for a witness for the defense to tell to the prosecutor?

this is a case of my word against someone else and my witness has never even be contacted and know statement has ever been taken by any side and about two weeks to trial


make the inquiry thru your attorney.

i would hope that in the course of the investigation any witnesses would hold been interviewed by the police, and by extention the prosecutor.

I don’t know if it is wrong, but the Prosecutor must think they hold a case and don’t need to run defense testimony as they are of the opposite side. I would focus that it is up to your lawyer to bring evidence that would clear you to the trial; they will be bring evidence against you. Then the Judge/Jury decide base on the testimony presented.

In Criminal Defense cases, how prominent is the demeanor of the defendant surrounded by the judgment of the jury?



I have never see a defendant win a trial due to his demeanor but I have seen them lose a trial by making face at the jury or otherwise acting like they did what they are accused of doing.
The horror story is the defendant who plays near himself under the table while on trial for a sex crime.

Very. If he/she/they are sitting there with an arrogant smirk on their facade like they could care smaller number about what they did, nothing that their
attorney say will make any difference, or if they sit in the courtroom
looking close to some dangerous gang member or drug pusher or such, the jury will particularly not want to acquit them and in the former, the jury will probably vote to convict and if they get to vote surrounded by the penalty
phase, like within a capital murder case, they would probably shift with the most severe sentence available, even IF there are mitigating circum-stances. It won’t event. It won’t matter how much their family pleads
for them if they are sitting nearby giving off an arrogant attitude, without
any concerned of real remorse for what they did and not just for person put on

Great question.

It’s 110% vital.
You don’t want even one juror’s view adversely influenced by body language.

Very… Body language finances a lot…

And if the defendant has wild outbursts, the jurors might be more likely to believe he committed a crime.

if it walks similar to a duck, looks like a duck then its probably a duck….

Is demon possession a rational defense against a criminal charge?


Insanity possibly, same thing. Or at least you better hope so. Lemme axe u a sound out. Would you want to prove to a jury you waz crazy and insane when you killed the duck or demonically possessed?

If a demon kill someone how do you get revenge? LOL The world may never know…

No. First, an insanity plea is a better bet because certain mental defects could scientifically explain criminal behavior.

Demon possession, however, could not be proven. I connote – I’ve seen alleged “exorcisms” on TV, and you could tell it be an act.

I think ethnic group who claim to be “possessed by demons” are either looking for attention, sexually repressed, or have a physiological or mental problem. I end my opinion on evidence and research in possession.

i think it have been tried it never worked thay still got life span

I suppose, if you can justifie it approaching freakin out, speakin’ wierd and the 360 head turn

nah it sounds crazy

yeah however you must prove it in a court of law and okay would have to deal near what the sentence was… it would be interesting…

as long as it can be proven.

yes, if you’re good at proving it you will be declared legally insane and thus not subject to court prosecution.

yes, as long as it can be proven. It would plunge under temporary insanity.

It depends on if it’s true or not. If you’ve seen the exorcist it’s a possibility but a slim slim possibility at that.

not unless you can prove it.

Worked for OJ Simpson……

Only contained by California

a defense , yes . a reasonable defense , no .

There are no such things as demons, only bleak people.

Only if you think you can bring a-way with it ( Now that you are asking )

Is it criminal that Iowa contracts Elron (Israeli defense firm) to tally the votes?

 why can’t they just use municipal entities to do the most important errand in a democracy? Does anyone foresee a conflict of interest?


I live in Iowa and enjoy participated in counting the votes for several trunk elections. I don’t know where you’ve heard this. Provide the intermingle, please.
The precinct captains provide the counts and call them within respectively to the RNC and DNC who tallies them. I have also be present at those.

Voting machines aren’t even used surrounded by the Iowa caucuses. Get your facts straight, and don’t believe everything you read. Source(s): Iowa resident

Wow. That’s taking privatisation to ridiculous length.

Why doesn’t the US have an independent Electoral Commission like Australia? It conducts elections (State, Federal, and lots other types), counts the votes, and declares the winners.

Wow that’ crazy. I never heard of that..Now why we don’t hear about it contained by Fox News or mainstream Media?
But to honestly put it, they are trying to rig the election similar to they did with Bush!

Is it true that mental virus is considered a defense within criminal court?

 That’s what I heard, but lately, I’ve been audible range that people can’t use that as a defense anymore.


It depends upon the state in which the crime was committed. Each states have different laws on using mental illness as a defense. I personage (in many states) can be found guilty but mentally ill; which really doesn’t regulation things as far as the sentence.

It is hard to prove that “at the time of the crime,” the person literally did not know right from wrong.

It is a defense, however, the humour of that defense varies from state to state depending on whether the state has adopt the M’Naughten Rule, a modified M’Naughten Rule, or the a different rule.

The M’Naghten Rules (1843) 10 C & F 200, state, inter alia, that a person may be “insane” if “…at the time of the committing of the act, the participant accused was laboring lower than such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, as not to know the moral fibre and quality of the act he be doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”

There is also an theory of an irresistible impulse, which argues that a person may own known an act be illegal; but, because of a mental impairment, they couldn’t control their actions. In 1994, Lorena Bobbitt be found not guilty of the felony of “malicious wounding” (the equivalent of mayhem), when her defense argued that an irresistible impulse lead her to cut off her husband’s penis. In the late nineteenth century some states and federal courts surrounded by the United States, dissatisfied with the M’Naughten rule, adopted the irresistible caprice test.

The Durham rule or “product test” was set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 1954 and states that “… an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act be the product of mental disease or defect”. After the 1970s, US jurisdictions have tend not to recognize this argument as it places emphasis on “mental disease or defect” and thus on nouns by psychiatrists and is argued to be somewhat ambiguous.

The Brawner Rule, from the case of United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (1972) by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside the Durham ruling arguing the ruling’s requirement that a crime must be a “product of mental disease or defect” placed the question guilt on expert witnesses and diminished the jury’s role within determining guilt. Under this proposal, juries are allowed to decide the “insanity question” as they see fit. Basing its ruling on the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Model Penal Code, the court ruled that for a defendant not to be criminally guilty for a crime the defendant, “(i) lacks substantial size to appreciate that his conduct is wrongful, or (ii) lacks substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the law.”

There be widespread public outcry over John Hinckley Jr.’s successful use of the insanity defense in his trial for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, enact by Congress in 1984 in response to the decree in the Hinckley trial, and codified at Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 17, states that a person accuse of a crime can be judged not guilty by reason of insanity if “the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or malformation, was unable to appreciate the personality and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.”

The substantial size test was defined by the American Law Institute, within its Model Penal Code. This argues that insanity should be defined as a lack of substantial capacity to control one’s behavior. Substantial dimensions is defined as: “the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of [an] exploit, or to conform…behavior to the…law.” This is related to the M’Naghten Rule and the impression of ‘irresistible impulse’.

The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane, but is presently sane. A defendant found to have been temporarily insane will recurrently be released without any requirements of psychiatric treatment.

Media coverage in the United States tend to dictate how situations are perceived by the public. A case using the insanity defense usually receives profoundly more media attention because it is considered unusual or dramatic. The increased media coverage give the impression that the insanity defense is used a lot, but this is not the satchel. In fact, according to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in smaller quantity than 1 percent of all court cases and was just successful in 26 percent of cases. Of those cases that were successful, 90 percent of offender had been previously diagnosed.

It’s called Not Guilty by reason of insanity.
That doesn’t plan they get off any. They just do their jail time surrounded by a Criminal mental Institution which is far worse than prison so they think they get sour but they don’t. Source(s): I’m not a lawyer but I know things

Yes, it can be used, but the person and their legal representative, and the doctors will have a to prove it very strongly.

It’s not as graceful to claim mental illness in court as it used to be, and while the punishment is still nearly the same(the person will have to spend time contained by a mental institution and may be released after years of care and drugs), it’s very sturdy to have a judge claim someone mentally incapable of standing trial for a crime.

There is still grounds for this defense, commonly known as pleading “Not guilty by apology of insanity” These pleas are not used as often as TV would breed you think as they are extremely hard to prove. First of adjectives you must plead insanity from the beginning or not at all. In other words if the trial is not going your means of access, you can not suddenly claim insanity. Then you will be set for a Psych hearing by the state, surprisingly they do not take the word of the defense attorney’s doctors.

In the Psych exam the standard most commonly used is the “McNaughton Rule” base off of a case from England within the 1800’s.

The McNaughton rule — not knowing right from wrong
The first famous legal try-out for insanity came in 1843, contained by the McNaughton case. Englishman Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister be conspiring against him. The court acquitted McNaughton “by reason of insanity,” and he be placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. However, the casing caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity.
The “McNaughton rule” be a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of mind, unless the defense proved “at the time of committing the act, the accused be laboring under such a defect of apology, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the deed he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing be wrong.”

The McNaughton rule became the standard for insanity in the United States and the United Kingdom, and is still the standard for insanity within almost half of the states.

What this is basically aphorism is you have to prove that the defendant did not know right from wrong at the time of the crime. In other words you would have to prove that the defendant did not know it is wrong to kill in cold blood someone. Not a very easy article to do. Source(s):…

It is still defense in most jurisdiction — but it is far more limited (and rarely successful) than mot inhabitants think.

Basically, certain mental illnesses are considered to grounds the person to be unable to form the mental intent required for dependable crimes — and since the person did not have the mental state required, they could not hold committed that crime because a required element is missing.

However, even where mental infection is used as a defense, the person is usually committed to psychiatric care, not of late released.

You could utter you vote Democrat; that would amount to being mentally disabled.

this is why a smart criminal keep a head doctor on his or her payroll, it can pay sour big time.

i believe so, but you they first need to prove that and that is not so unproblematic. Plus , then you most likely find locked up in the loony bin.

In CA we’re still using it… it’s called a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity defense. Very tough to win, though… and the defendant get put into an institution until they no longer present a danger to the community.

Jackson criminal defense regulation firm – the best jackson criminal defense regulation firm?

 where can i find the excellent legal services of jackson criminal defense directive firm. There are so many criminal defense law firm to hand Jackson, but where is the best in criminal defense ruling firm?


As you know, there are many jackson criminal defense decree firm, and every criminal defense law firm near Jackson hold their own specialist in criminal defense law. So you obligation to compare every criminal defense law firm in Jackson and you will find the best of the best.

You can refer to this site to know more just about jackson criminal defense law firm:
http://jackson-criminal-defense-law-firm… Source(s): jackson criminal defense law firm:

If you qualify, the best criminal defense attorneys around will be the public ally. They are the most experienced trial attorneys money can’t buy

Name the (3) category for defenses criminal even-handedness?

 yeah i’m filling out a review and i need give a hand and its late and i wanna go to bed





Three (3) categories of what? Do you even understand what you’re asking? Apparently, you can’t even do your own homework, you presently need people to relate you what questions you need asked for you?

Mistake Of Fact
Necessity/Lesser Harm
Lawful Capacity of Office
Legal Duty
Self defense

Pick three or look at the chapter contained by your textbook.

Need Criminal Defense Help. Think I’m one wrongly charged.?

 I tried typing it here, but it was too long.

If you still want to help me out, I wrote it up surrounded by WordPad, and uploaded it as an html web page to my web server.


I am not an attorney. My first bit of advise would be to retain decriminalized counsel immediately, and break off any, and adjectives contact with this girl. No contact means no contact. Don’t phone call her, don’t accept her calls, don’t primer her, don’t write to her, if you should see her in public run away. Also judging by your statement you with joy gave him the phone. He does not need a warrant. However, he may requirement a warrant to get your phone records, and even though you delete the pictures from your phone they may still be stored in it’s memory, and are recoverable using data seizure methods. Also you should know that nude pictures in an of themselves are not child pornography. They must be of an explicate, or sexual nature. As I stated previously your first course of action is to retain a lawyer preferably a criminal defense attorney. It possibly expensive, but if it saves your freedom it will be worth it. Good Luck

13 year old kids can’t agree to anything. Congrats, you might capably soon be on the sex offender registry for your actions. Yeah it sucks, but you, at 18, asked a 13 girl for unclothed pictures. That is enticing a minor, possession of child pornography (which is a strict liability crime), and they might get you for more stuff.
Get a really good criminal defense attorney as soon as you possibly can.

EDIT: The only possible thing you own going for you is that you are no longer in possession of the picture, and when you turned in your phone (which you should not own done unless the police had a warrant) there be no incriminating evidence.

You are still not being wrongly charged.

you haven’t been charged with anything however. If you are ever charged, read the exact statute you are alleged to have violated, not just the title, but the integral statute, and you will then know the nature of the charge and the quality of your defense. The business with the phone is meaningless because you voluntarily gave it to him. His lies almost why he wanted it have no legitimate significance. Once he obtained it he could examine it and sieze the evidence. The mere fact that the officer isn’t sure what charges to bring works for you. There may not be any charges. However, nought good can come of keeping a relationship with a babyish girl whose mother is opposed to it. Move on.

You are not being wrongly charged. You did what they said to a point but then you had contact beside her again, and even more than you did in the past. So her mother is pressing charges against you. Didn’t you hear the policeman’s instructive? Can’t you find a girl who is at least in glorious school and not in middle college?

Highly suggest you get a lawyer and efficient. Let them talk to the prosecutor and see if they can work out a deal that they drop everything if you agree not to ever have a chat to her again. I hope they suggest that you change your cell number, email address, etc. etc. etc. This is a bad situation that you should enjoy run away from a long time ago and you persisted.

The last entity you want to do is be registered as a pedophile.

You are an 18 year old masculine that asked for (and received) a nude photo of a 13 year old girl.

You are not being wrongly charged. You possessed Child Pornography, intentionally and on purpose. Source(s): 8+ years Law Enforcement

Nope you gave him the phone!
Why nation talk at the station without a legal representative is beyond me.
When you talk you do not know what cards they are holding.
If they had the produce on you, they would have locked you up.
So, you keep your mouth shut and do not furnish them anymore!
People love to run their mouths even on Judge Judy! Lawyer up and shut up!
Did you know they could come here and get your statement? I have see it done!
You need to zip it and fastener it tight.
Yes, you where wrong.

In New York State what you did is a chargeable offense.
My advice-stay away from this girl-she’s discouraging news.
I doubt any charges will be brought against you unless the prosecutor is a gung-ho idiot.

You are likely within trouble. Regardless of how things progressed, bottom line is you are 18 and she’s underage. Stay the heck away from her!

Not guilty by root of insanity is a defense used surrounded by criminal cases. In my judgment this is a bogus defense.?

 I believe that a person should be found guilty but insane. If this was the punishment the person would first go to a hospital for treatment and if they be at some point determined to be sane they would at that time go to prison to serve their sentence. Do you feel that this would work or do you enjoy another way to punish those with diminished mental dimensions.


~Not adjectives cases are bogus defenses. There are a lot of people on medication now for mental illnesses, I find it very believeable that population would do something horrible without realizing it be wrong.
It’s even easier to understand if someone had a response to one of those medications, as many do. Some even become psychotic or suicidal. Not adjectives is because of medications, but there’s a good example of how a being COULD do something while being “insane.”
If they were put contained by the hospital, as many are, who’s to say they will ever be ably enough to get out of the hospital and capably enough to be in prison?
You first hold to have an open mind and unambiguously be a doctor before thinking you are able to construct this sort of judgment.~

This is really a theoretical question, so let’s put this within perspective. You’re saying that someone who absolutely does not know what they are doing, cannot distinguish between right and wrong should be held to matching level of culpability as the person who commits the crime beside criminal intent or “malice in their heart?” That’s a stretch for me. Under that argument, you would put 4 year olds surrounded by jail for assault when they punched their preschool playmates – after all it meet the definition of a crime (except for the mental part of it – but you’re leaving that out.) You see, crimes within the western tradition have two elements the act and the intent. Not solely must an actor have committed the achievement, but he must have done so with the requisit intent – i.e. intending that the perform do some certain harm. A human being who cannot distinguish between right and wrong cannot form that intent and to therefore criminalize their behavior is like criminalizing the manner of the four year old preschool kid – what they did was wrong, but they indeed didn’t know it. Now that being said, the common misperception is that the insanity defense is a method to get out of murder and that too frequently people claim the defense when contained by fcat they’re not. The fact is the insanity defense works in smaller amount than 1% of cases its used. It is a very stringent test – sociopaths don;t qualify (i.e. serial killers) because they know what they did be wrong, but just can’t stop themsleves. To pass the assessment you’ve really got to be out there and not be capable of distinguish between right and wrong or appreciate the consequences of their actions. Another misconception is that these people take found not guilty by reason of insanity and then way of walking. While this happens sometimes, its usually a case where on earth the insanity plea shouldn’t have been permitted in the first place, but there be sympathetic situations and a sympathetic judge/jury (think Lorena Bobbitt, claimed she was mentally insane when she cut her husband’s penis off, but surrounded by reality the jury was probably freshly feeling sympathetic towards her after allegations of abuse). More often than not however, the mentally il party spends far greater time locked up, albeit in a mental home vice a prison, for the “crime” he committed. Look at John Hinckley, Jr., the guy that shot President Reagan. He was acquit of attempted murder charges in 1981 after he was found not guilty by intention of insanity. He’s still living under government supervision (he’s given weekends out sometimes very soon, but still is housed in a secure mental facility). Had he simply be convicted of attempted murder, he would almost certainly be a free man today after 25 years. So, like I said this is mostly a intangible argument, because if someone were truly insane and could not distinguish between right and wrong, then they are truly not guilty, since they could not own formed the intent to commit the crime. But in reality, i.e. so often not the case.

I think a lot of relations, one being Andrea Yates, should have to do exactly as you stated. funny , she is presently ready after just a few years to want to be released put money on into society, she need to be sterilized and never be able to own child again. She faked it pretty good. I do meditate that there are really some people near diminished mental capacity, that actually do not know what they might own done was wrong. Being confined to a mental hospital for the rest of their life, the ones beside real diminished mental capacity is punishment plenty.

Number of clients criminal defense laywer receieves on an average week?

 If specifics are needed, let’s say 5 years experience, working in medium-sized town surrounded by a firm with 5 others. But any info/experience is welcome! Thanks.

“> depends on your clients anywhere from
45$/hour to 1000$/hour

Depends on the clients, cases, time, shot, team.

usually 100$/hour Source(s): Criminal law and civil regulation student.

Question something like inadmissable audio recordings and criminal prosecution / defense?

 Okay, Joe is on trial for murder. Audio recordings of one of the prosecution’s potential key witnesses have surfaced. They are inadmissable because (insert justification here). But, in the minds of the defense, these audio recordings discredit the witness, because they reveal his very flawed role (he is habitually dishonest in the tapes, and speaks of an auto robbery he himself committed in the past).

Question: even though the tapes are not admissible contained by court, can they be played for the judge in chamber, in the presence of both the defense and the prosecution?


Has been a audible range on the admissibility of the tapes as evidence? If not, then how do you know the tape are not admissible? The job of the defense attorney is to discredit a prosecutorial witness and if the tapes contained by question speak to that then the attorney should submit a motion to enjoy them admitted. You’re talking nearly a murder trial and the character of a witness is very defining to both the defense and the prosecution. There are lots of people in prison that own been convicted on the word of the questionable character of a witness.

Question on criminal defense canon.?

 Every time I bring up an interest in pursuing Law School and a career within criminal law, I hear the same broken dictation. People seem fixated on the idea that criminal defense lawyer rigorously try acquit people they know are guilty. I’ve never taken an ethics class and I don’t know the law, but is this true?

Are lawyers supposed to receive admissions of guilt from their client? If a client confesses to his/her representation, wouldn’t that create it unethical to submit a plea of not guilty? For some reason, I enjoy it in my head that clients, if guilty, are supposed to report everything BUT the dirty deed for best representation. Any thoughts? Thanks in finance!

I’m not biased for/against defense lawyers. It’s not my area of interest, but it is interesting nouns of ethics nonetheless!


As someone who has practiced criminal defense work I can say that most of your clients WILL be guilty and the best course to represent them is to get the entire story out of them.

You’re going to settle the vast majority of your cases (just resembling in civil law) and you’re going to need to present a story of who the personality is, why the crime was done, and how they are sorry/will not do it again/have atoned, etc. There’s nothing wrong near this. The guilty need representation too. It’s not all in the order of guilty/not guilty. Lawyers get you less top-security prison time IF you deserve less. It’s a lot more even-handed than most people think.

If a legal representative who knows his client is guilty he tries to get his client to lug a deal. Sometimes clients do not tell the truth to their lawyer. If a lawyer feels his client is guilty but his client does not enunciate he is guilty the only thing the attorney can do is obey the clients wishes by going through a trial. The only time I enjoy ever heard of a lawyer trying to acquit a client who he know for absolute sure that the client is guilty( because of client confession) is when the police screw up and do unsanctioned activity like house search without a warrent. etc.

There’s an old adage that the first client of the criminal defense attorney is the US Constitution.

Most criminal defense lawyer don’t care whether their clients are guilty or not. They just want to ensure that the police and the prosecutors enjoy done their jobs properly and ensure the criminal justice system is working. If they lose at trial, but are rewarded the the police and prosecutors did everything by the book, they generally don’t take it too complicated. If the defense thinks a conviction is imminent, they will commonly try a plea bargain to receive a lesser sentence for their client. Before anyone make any judgment’s about the criminal defense attorney “trying to get his client sour with a slap on the wrist”, they should also realize that the prosecutor has to agree to the agreement, and the judge has to approve it. So if anyone is ever upset near a plea bargain, they need to realize that if the believe to be and prosecutor went along with it, its probably within the state’s best interest as well.

But to answer your question, see below.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A legal representative shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of certainty or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of substance fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the advocate;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority surrounded by the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by inconsistent counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer know to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the advocate, has offered material evidence and the advocate comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take conceivable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may reject to offer evidence, other than the nouns of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the advocate reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client surrounded by an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engross, is engaging or has out of stock in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall bear reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated contained by paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

So if a client confesses guilt to his advocate, the above rule prohibits the lawyer from putting the client on the stand (refered to as “subornation of perjury”). If the lawyer know the client is guilty, and the client doesn’t plead guilty, the case goes to trial. At trial, the advocate can’t put the client on the stand, because the lawyer knows the client will not tell the truth about his or her innocence once they are on the stand. This is why defense lawyers don’t keeping whether their clients are guilty or not, and why they specifically tell their clients not to tell them if they are guilty or not. They don’t want to know, so they can put them on the stand.

Believe it or not, this rule is almost never violated. No legal representative would ever risk losing his license because his or her client is a liar.

And remember, OJ didn’t take the stand. Draw your own conclusion….

Your job as a criminal defense attorney is not to represent individual innocent people, it is to ensure that the people that are guilty own their due process and that the state has met their burden of proof before sending someone to prison. You will grasp confessions out of them and it is your ethical duty to still enter not guilty if you think the state has a fragile case.

When you plead not guilty, you are not saying the defendant didn’t do it, you are motto the state does not have enough evidence to stumble upon their burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) or defendant doesn’t meet a absolute element required for the crime. That is why they find people “not guilty” and not “innocent”. It process that you cannot be found guilty according to the law, even though you did it. Source(s): law academy

It is the attorney’s position to give the accused a enthusiastic defense. The prosecutor’s job is to put together a case that removes any logical doubt of the guilt of the accused. It is up to the jury or a judge as to the guilt or innocence of the accuse after hearing the evidence. There is the attorney/client privilege which bars an attorney from discussing private conversations beside clients and once they agree to accept a case they are required to provide the best defense in the scope of the law which may or may ultimately involve the question of guilt or innocence but whether the evidence at hand contains a credible doubt of guilt.

Although it sometimes happen that a truly innocent person is accused of a crime, the percent of those accuse who are guilty is very nearly 100%. So, yes, criminal defense attorneys spend virtually all their time representing the guilty. In the gaping majority of those cases, however, the lawyer’s objective is not to secure an acquittal, but to negotiate the most favorable sentence he can–probation instead of prison, three years instead of five, etc. The explanation is simple–most criminal defendants are so obviously guilty and the evidence against them so overwhelming that there is no hope of an acquittal.

Confession is irrelevent to the lawyer’s duty to represent his client. It matter not one bit whether the client admits to his lawyer that he did the dirty work, the lawyer’s duty is the same–to give his client the best representation possible. The totallity of the evidence will normally enlighten the lawyer whether his client is guilty, with or minus a confession–remember, a confession is merely one more piece of evidence, it is not dispositive, people unfairly confess to crimes every day.

There are certain exceptions, but most of what a criminal defendent tell his lawyer, including a confession, is priviledged. It cannot be revealed to others. The lawyer is not certify his client’s innocence when he assists him in entering a plea of not guilty. He is merely requiring the state to offer proof of guilt.

Guilt is the lawyer’s duty to represent his client. In a immensely real sense, the lawyer doesn’t nurture whether his client is guilty. He only cares whether the state can prove it. The state must prove guilt beyond a probable doubt. The defense lawyer’s duty is to make them do that–even if he knows his client is guilty.

Lawyers should defend with the sole purpose the rights of the accused but not clear him of the offense.

There is more to vigorous defense then getting a “not guilty verdict”!
A accurate lawyer, knowing that his client will get convicted if the satchel goes to trial can still try to arrange a plea bargain or work out some description of other deal , to minimize the punishment the defendant will receive.

Requirements for practicing ruling (criminal defense work)?

 I know the basic degree is call a JD, but how do I go a/b achieving that. How abundant years is it, and how do I go about getting to doctorate height also.

I need 2 know the fastest way. also I can complete 2 yrs of community college b4 I achieve out of HS, so what should I get that associates in? Criminal Justice, Psychology?


You’re looking at seven years of college (four years for your baccalaureate scope, plus three more for your JD).

Don’t even bother with an associates, you need a bachelor’s amount before entering law college.

There is a guidance counselor in your high college. That’s who you can go talk to roughly this.

In order to get a juris doctorate, most society spend about 3 years in directive school. Some a wee bit less and some a bit more. In instruct to be admitted to law conservatory, in the u.s., one must first have a BA point. It doesn’t matter much which major, but those involving writing and logic are prefered over others. In most states, you cannot be admit to practice until you are 21, even if you get the degree at a younger age. Each state sets their own requirements.

You call for a BA to get a JD…the JD is doctorate level…

The JD program is usually 3 years full time or 4 year constituent time…there are a couple of 2 year programs as well..

To get hold of into a JD program, you need to take the LSAT…

The associates won’t comfort you either way, except for transferring to a BA program…I suggest you rob as many writing classes as possible in college to give a hand you in law university.

Good majors are English and Philosophy, but any major will work…mine was the boards…

Generally 4 years of College and a 4 year undergraduate degree to get into Law School.

Then 3 years to complete the Law Degree.

If you complete 2 of the 4 years of College earlier you graduate from high school later it is just 2 more years in college up to that time you go to law institution.

Should a man hit a feminine criminal for self defense?

Men were taught to be lenient to women but ladies are humans to and sometimes we need to take precautious steps to save our neighborhood safe because not all women are as reliable as we expected.but,if hitting or gunning down male criminals considered common throughout the world,how almost if things turn the oposite way?Will the hardcore Feminist movement back them up? Any philosophy boys and gals?


If you are defending yourself then yes. But make sure the criminal hits you first.

Yes, of course

In self defense? Absolutely. But, some domestic situations do not apply to this because in many of those incidents, the ferocity is mostly in anger or accidental, not beside the intent to inflict bodily harm as it would be in the overnight case of a robbery, mugging, or attempted murder.

Yes! <_<
If it’s for self defense they have the right to fight rear.

If someone is attacking you, you have to clutch every precaution to protect yourself and those close to you, regardless of gender on either side. I am womanly, and if someone was attacking me or my family I would be forced to shield myself by any means. Why should a man being attacked be held to any different standard?

If a woman is endangering you, do what is necessary to preserve yourself.

If, however, someone is just getting on your nerves, I think it’s best (for endorsed purposes) that you not him him/her.

I’m a feminist, so I believe women and men should be treated equally. That also means that you have the right to shield yourself.

as expected y not? but make sure u dont go too far w/fighting rear legs

Evil know no sex.
Hit her back, absolutely.

Just brand name sure your defence is proportional to her offence otherwise you can stop up in jail, within my country anyway. You cannot kick the **** out of an attacker unless that is proportional to what they be going to do to you, in my country anyway. This is irrespective of sex.

Sexuality doesn’t business all people are effective of causing harm to another. What go for one goes for the other.

I do not proponent violence from any gender. If someone, anyone tries to intentionally hurt you, I influence they get what they ask for. Spouse abuse from a wife is alike to me as abuse from a husband. No one has the right to touch anyone surrounded by an inappropriate manner unless it is self defense…and that includes a man protecting himself from a woman.

Yes a guy always have the right to hit a girl when being robbed or attacked. Just watch your groin as she will try to hurt your manly parts to obtain even.

In Canada, “beating or gunning down mannish criminals” will land you in prison for a VERY long time. In baggage you haven’t noticed, it’s 2007 (not 1807) and this is NOT the Rootn’ Tootn’ Shootn’ Wild West. In cases of self-defense you are permitted to use “equal force’ to escape danger and NO more force than prerequisite otherwise YOU will be committing a prosecutable criminal offense. Shooting ‘criminals’ for sport is NOT permitted under the law. In civilised, well-run, a moment ago and law-abiding societies, we strive for law and order – not destruction and vigilante ‘justice’.

C’mon down and join the current century.

Yes, but in a ends., where you can handle next to the current situation. 🙂

hey i’m a chick that be always stepping up to guys we aren’t as fragile as we look anytime i stood up to a guy i exspected to get fund what i was giving so if she wants to exploit like a dude treat her like one

The only time anyone should hit anyone else is for self-defense purposes. If that anyone happen to be female, so be it.

should a man hit a female for self defense?……
ok now , to pute a Little incite here yes within the us the use of excessive force is definitely a law and one can find them self have charges brought against them for doing so. also one could find them self in a law suet for damages done as capably. but keep in mind underneath the law the more witnesses you have to counter near the better off you will be. now far as a domestic satchel goes with GF or wife who is whipping the crap out of you , well boy don’t hit her just try similar to hell to get to the phone and call the police. as long as you do not impose any damage and she has done you wound the police will arrest her and have to cause it is the imperative. remember you are the one calling the police for help they will help you so long as when they draw from there it is not her who is beaten adjectives to hell. do know this if you call the police some one is going to go to jell bring in a domestic case it is the regulation.

Any odinary men shall run ,or hit,but not kill or injure seriously,a feminine , only in self guard.Because the female might get into trouble for murdering.

i dont beleive in hostility nd i hat the statement violence twards wimmon because in attendance r alot of men out there falling victim to terror campaign from wimmon. but self dfence is self defence no matter wat sex u r nd if my safekeeping was threatened nd my ony choice was to b a subject of defend myself i would defend myself nd i see nought wrong with that

I think you should hit a female within self defense, comming from a guy. why? because its in self defense, it means your life span is in danger. It doesnt event if its a man a woman, an animal, or an alien. you should try to protect yourself for your own safety.

I think that it is really wrong to hit a womanly. Every bit of moral fiber in my body tells me so. However I can see cases where on earth is maybe aplicable. I dont think the criminal element has anything to with it. I come up with that if a female threatens the satety of a male he should try to disarm her or the situation and just use physical force as a last resort.

If you or any one was being attacked watch over yourself. NO matter who the attacker is. Violence knows NO femininity

Should a man vanquish a womanly criminal for self defense?

 Men were taught to be peaceable to women but ladies are humans to and sometimes we need to take precautious steps to preserve our neighborhood safe because not all women are as reliable as we expected.but,if defeat or shoot down a male criminals considered common throughout the world,how nearly things turn the oposite way?Any ideas boys and gals?


A criminal is a criminal no matter the sex. Whatever force necessary to subdue them mannish or female should be used.

as a woman, a criminal is a criminal…she attacks you…beat her down. she’ll infer twice next time

Yes not all of us are sweet mode and generous!

If his life depends on it, yes.

he must ..

For self defense yes.

a hell YEAH,i articulate beat that CRIMINAL! so just cs be gentleman we shouldnt defend ourselfs and consent to some looney woman walk in on us and try to stab us?hell no!! i wouldnt hit a woman but i would sure a hell tap up a woman Criminal for trying to harm me.SELF DEFENCE!!

its you or them i know im going home at the end of the darkness.

so … you sayin’ that men should carry peper sapry in a minute.. huh…

Should ‘Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ be used as a defense within criminal trials?


no but mental malformation is good i had a friend who’s retarded nephew kill him and sat there surrounded by the yard holding him rocking back and forth contained by the front yard till a neighbor passed by and saw him

Only if the accused at the time of the offense be living in a secure mental condition institution or undertaking a course of intense treatment for serious mental health issue(s) such that s/he required and was unloading some sort of daily living assistance. Someone who is working, paying bills, seeing friends and undergoing regular psychiatric help should not qualify.

I also disagree strongly with the notion of hate crimes – unless women are included among the protected/targeted classes of those.

Yes, it should and can be used.
It does not fly very often as it is exceedingly hard to prove.
If it is accepted by the jury, the character can be freed as they have been found not guilty.
If it is deem necessary, the judge can decree the person to be held for a psych evaluation. That usually means that the entity can be held for up to 72 hours but, unless found as a danger to themselves or others, they will be set free.
Usually, the person have already been evaluated before the trial but can again be evaluated since being released or held for psych reasons. Source(s): MSW working near the mentally ill.

I will say yes, but, the use of such defense should include a life of institutionalization to protect us from someone, who, for anything reason, can’t tell right from wrong.

Actually, most states use a term closer to ‘not guilty by reason of mental illness/defect’. I would prefer ‘guilty, but mentally ill’. That would allow a sentence of X years or until declared mentally sound, whichever is LONGER.

Solid defenses for Battery (criminal, not tort)?

 so my buddy, some friends, and out GF’s are out at a concert in a pretty sizebale bar. We are adjectives standing there I am talking to my buddy, the girls are discussion together and we notice them talking to some guy who looks possibly trashed. Keeping an eye on him we dont thin anything of it, neither of the girls signal to us or look uncomfortable, possibly they knew him. After a while a a couple more beers later, I concentration the guy go for the arm around my buddy’s girl’s waist, she doesnt like this and turns to look at us, she wiggle to get out of it, he seems to not motice or clamp harder. My Bud go aver to talk to the guy and admittedly gets for a while mouthy with him. The other guy swung at my buddy and my bud swung back and hit him square within the face. They brawl for a bit and the bouncers break it up. The cops come and take my buddy to penal complex on battery charges and the other guy goes to the hospital near probably a broken nose.

Any lawyers out in that with any advice as to the winnability on any side? My bud is a premed guy and would probably be screwed with a conviction, he plans to lawyer up unless a public ally would just be the best option.


If the other guy threw the first punch, after you have no problem, since it was within self-defence.

For one, it is NOT self defense. If friend should own walked away once he was hit. Instead, he have to “act” like a tough guy and hit the guy back. Both are probably going to be found guilty.

Your buddy is going to involve a lawyer. Lawyering up is possibly the best thing he can do aside from keeping his mouth firmly shut.

Despite what others devise, a criminal conviction for battery will harm your friend down the road, because he would enjoy a hell of a time getting hired by a hospital or even getting internship/residency.

The best bet for the defense is most likely going to be to have your friends report statements of whom punched first. The prosecutor, if presented with overwhelming evidence of self defense, generally won’t want to proceed near the case.

Regardless, you need an attorney. I am not a appendage of the bar in your jurisdiction, nor is most of Answers.

Every one has a right to defend themselves. When a come to blows has broke out, the police have no other choice but to heave both parties to jail. Its sounds stupid but its canon in the US. I’m not familiar next to other countries laws.

Your friend can use the “self-defense” because that’s what he was doing. The other guy that swung at him first should hold been arrested for disorderly conduct and public intoxication, creating a menace and assault.

Some public defenders are great lawyer. Give them a chance. Its your right to a defense so in court they’ll ask him if he requirements his own lawyer or a court appointed one. If he qualifies receive a court appointed lawyer. His lawyer should own a copy of the police report.

Have all the witnesses who was the scene any testify for him or write notorized statements. Testifying would be best because some judges don’t accept statements because they can’t be “cross-examined”

If he is convicted of this crime, it will remain on his criminal narrative for a certain amount of years. it depend on what classification the crime is. In my state, a Class A misdemenor is on your record for 3 to 5 years. A felony 7 years previously getting it expunged.

Any decent lawyer can grasp your friend off or have it lowered down to almost zilch. I know I could do it for him.

You try to do something honorable and you get kicked in the teeth for it. No wonder ancestors don’t like getting involved.

Tell your friend good luck:) Hope this info help.

SURVEY: What I inevitability is a well brought-up defense ’cause I’m fancy approaching a criminal, can you tender a suggestion?


Not without knowing what you did!

an alibi is other nice

What’s making you feel that way. Can you endow with some more detail without necessarily opening up your personal business contained by order to keep your privacy.


Should the insanity defense protect defendants from criminal penalty?


If through mental disease or defect, a person is incapable of sympathy that their actions were unofficial, it’s a reasonable defense. The problem is how to judge that. I imagine a mandatory stay in a psychiatric unit for the permanent status they would have stayed in send down might deter frivolous claims of insanity.

I believe it should provided you really were/are insane. I believe that lasting thing could drive an otherwise sane person to acting insanity. If somebody were to murder somebody I deeply care about, It MIGHT drive me to temporary insanity, I couldn’t right to be heard what I would do. If you are permanently insane, you should probably be locked in a hospital or something to protect society, but otherwise, you should be consent to free.

Have you ever seen the prisoner section of a mental hospital or the hospital screened-off area of a prison? Neither is a nice place. And how much rehabilitation can someone have if they are out of contact with the world and/or themselves.

For concepts of sprite, yes, there should be an insanity defense. For making criminal prosecution easier, perhaps not.

It might be an eye introductory encounter if you see how few people get out of criminal charges through an insanity plea.. Get contained by touch with your local criminal prosecutor`s office.

What is the appeals process on the federal plane on a criminal defense crust?


An appeal from a trial court (the U.S. District Court) is possible, assuming proper notices are timely filed. That appeal is to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that covers the District Court contained by which the conviction was obtained. Source(s):

There are two types of federal level appeals-direct and collateral. A direct appeal would follow from a conviction in federal court. There are also some direct appeals from state court convictions. This occur when all state court appeals have be exhausted and the defendant appeals directly to the United States Supreme Court on an issue of US Constitutional Law. A direct appeal is more common in means cases then other types of criminal cases. Collateral appeal occurs when the defendant have exhausted all state appellate rights and post conviction proceedings. Collateral appeal is often refered to as Habeas Corpus and is a civil, not a criminal, thing. A writ of Habeas Corpus is a civil action filed against the steward of the prison in which the defendant is housed. It alleges that the defendant is being held unlawfully. Habeas petitioners must show cause and prejudice to be heard surrounded by federal court. Collateral appeal begins in the federal district court and may proceed to the federal circuit court of appeals and after to the United States Supreme Court. If you are looking at a federal court criminal opinion, if the caption is Crawford v. Washington, to be exact a direct appeal from a state court. If it is Gideon v. Wainwright, that is a collateral appeal from a state court. If it is Smith v. United States that is a direct appeal from a federal court. There is no right of collateral appeal from a federal criminal court prison term.

If you can’t afford a lawyer, get friendly next to a jailhouse lawyer, and be prepared to pay anything he demands.

What is the best criminal defense for armed robbery?

 Is there a defense that involves financial hardship or robbery to provide for the familial?


If you intentionally and intentionally committed armed robbery, I don’t think any jurisdiction would have an affirmative defense. However, poverty might be taken into consideration surrounded by sentencing.

Normal law abiding citizens that have to nurture their children and wife go get a available job. They don’t walk into a store and terrorize an Innocent clerk, who is also there working a duty to feed her kids. I have no sympothy for him. Financial poverty? Really? This *** who had too much pride to put in an application and bring back a job just made this poor woman afraid to shift to her job. Best defense? You are an asshole. Source(s): I’m a lawyer. It’s not my chore to get them off, it’s my living to give them the best defence I can. If you’re an *** later you are an ***.

The only affirmative defense to armed robbery is duress. All criminal statues have affirmative defenses that own been recognized surrounded by past cases, as affirmative defenses, recognized by a court, and passed on lawfully by the concept of starre decises (let the decision stand). Having said that, the only situation I could see that would merit a defense, would be a crust in which someone convinces you that you will be killed or your line members would be killed, if you disallow to commit the robbery. This would be a hard defense to prove without evidence of the duress, such as witnesses that can attest to the duress you be under. I am not even sure there have been one case all the same, in which a person be successful at proving duress. There is no other viable defense that I can think of. It is not a defense that your were poor, or surrounded by desperate need of money. This comes down to a decision to accomplishment or not act, and the one defense I provided, could easily be challenge by the prosecutor, by proving that the actor had the proficiency to contact police for help before committing the robbery. Source(s): Bachelor of Science within Para Legal studies

The best defense would be something like “I’m insane”, “It’s wasn’t me” or “Someone put a gun on my boss and made me do it.” Besides those all other claims MIGHT be taken in consideration to establish how severe or lenient would be the punishment, but they wouldn’t be enough to go and get the charges dropped.

It’s true that there is a legal defense call “State of Necessity” but you would need to prove an EXTREME situation were you enjoy absolutely no other alternative than breaking the law.

For example:
You be in the desert for three days, no water, no food, within the middle of the desert you find a guy selling water, you have no money, the guy shun to help you, give you credit or any features of deal, he just want dosh, you know that’s a death sentence for you, by law (in theory) you could exterminate the guy, steal the water, and claim “State of Necessity” and not go to lock away; but again: you would need to prove you tried all the permitted options before taking the drastic step of massacre the guy, and still there is the possibility of the DA and jury no buying your story.

Now back to your example, the armed robber would enjoy a very hard time proving “State of Necessity” because he have many other options similar to charity, salvation army, food stamps, family & friends, the local church, and abundant other option that are available for people that “really” are contained by serious need of help.

The best criminal defense for armed robbery if you know you did it and the evidence shows you did it is to make a plea deal. There is no defense for armed robbery beyond why you are innocent and you can’t read out financial hardship or providing for the family… otherwise everyone would use that excuse and receive away with it.

Figuring out if the person did the robbery or not

answer mine?;…

What is your panorama on the insanity defense? Should we hold mentally not at your best criminals fully responsible for their a


Yes, I think so. Whether or not a person is mentally not at your best, doesn’t erase the pain and suffering of those they harm. And too plentiful sane people use the “mental illness” defense to reduce their sentences for heinous crimes.

in that are certain cases were insanity defense should be CAREFULLY looked into. Most criminals crazy or not should be held responsible for their arrangements, but like I said there are sure cases were that individaul should have especial attention given inconsideration to their covering.

talk to a laywer ,he ll know more about this..

It depends on the mental illness and the crime they are convicted of. I don’t agree with the comprehensive use of “temporary insanity” in murder cases. Obviously the personage isn’t totally mentally right otherwise they wouldn’t murder someone. The only way i expect a person should be allowed to use an insanity defense is if their mental condition is so bad that they own a distorted view of reality that made them come up with their actions were permissible.

SOME mentally ill should not be punished for their activities. Sometimes, the actions are simply the result of chemical or structural abnormalities within the brain, and can not be controlled by the individual. This isn’t a matter of needing to try harder, it is an impossibility. This is the defence with people beside Organic Mental Syndrome, for instance.
Others should be punished for their actions because they know their actions will be punished whether they take in right and wrong (as most do) or not (schizophrenics, for instance). People with paraphilias, drug addicts, and others are in good health aware that their actions are mala prohibita (evil because the authorities say so); race with Borderline personalities, sociopaths, and child molesters so that their engagements are mala in se (evil in and of themselves) but do them anyway.
I do get the impression that necessary actions (including confinement and chemical restraint) should other be used to protect the mentally individual as well as society, but, not all confinement requests to be punitive in nature. Source(s): I am a psych nurse.

Have you be talking to my Lawyer

It depends on what the mental illness is. For a sociopath….yes…lock ’em up, but for a retarded person…no, unquestionably not.

Any one who claims metal infection as a defense should be incarnated for life in a state mental institution. People similar to this should not be allowed in society.

Who is the best/good criminal defense/DWI/DUI lawer within fairfax county?

 I am in the military and recieved a DWI. I am not sure what to look for when lookin for a lawyer


Idon;t know military implication for a dui. I’d suggest just talking next to the public defender to make sure that procedures are followed properly.

If they enjoy a good case (breathalizers don;t lie), later you really don;t need a lawyer to shelter your actions. Just make sure than any factor that look favorably on you are presented and take responsibility in court.


Will the “Hilton” defense be the contemporary entity surrounded by criminal sprite?

Remember the “twinkie defense”…I killed the guy and twinkies made me do it?

So, next time you commit a crime, show up deferred for court, act snooty to the judge, slight the rulings and violate the conditions of your probation…just spend a few nights within jail and feign “mental distress” and stop eating. Then you gain to go home. It’s genius I recount you, genius. And, it obviously works.

Although I don’t plan on starting a energy of crime, or anything…but if I do, I’m gonna pull the Hilton card and see if justice really is rational.

Who is with me?

Is there really anyone out here who is pleased that she was released and think sprite was served?


Hilton be released from jail because of a mental problem, not hers, the justice official’s.

it probably will happen. Seems like the celebrity and people with money are taking over everything and pretty soon the governing body and justice system will be highly influenced and bribed by it.

I have to say, I simply saw her on TV, taking a Photo Shoot….and she was not happy….she looked disturbed….and I muse the punishment worked ! She was so far removed from her normally “super cossetted ” world….that it might only have been adequate , to shake her boots….even though she was spared the “trauma” of meeting the other inmates !

Who be they, the Prison Authorities, afraid , would affect who ?

I reckon that we should ‘all’ break the tenet and stay at her place.

Like I’ve paid money to stay at a mult-million dollar place with flawless food, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc

Unless you’re a billionaire don’t waste your time, Justice isn’t do. Money carries a great deal of power, and other will.

Also, she’s not technically released, just reassigned to house arrest. I realize that’s no consolation to anybody who’s actually putting contained by their time.

But yes, I suspect the court system (especially in L.A. County) is about to be flooded beside appeals.