There is no right to bail created by the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Amendment states that Excessive bail shall not be required but it does not create the right to bail. In Stack v. Boyle, 342 US 1, 72 S.Ct. 1(1951), the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to bail, but the Eighth Amendment requires that when bail is determined by a trial court it must be reasonable and particularized to the defendant. A motion for pre-trial release is based upon a right that an arrested person has been given. State constitutions may provide for this substantive right to bail in criminal cases. The phrase proof is evident or the presumption is great is actually a standard of proof that the State must carry. It is the highest standard of proof known to American law. It is far higher than the usual standard in criminal trials, which is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must present testimony and/or real evidence not only sufficient to convict the defendant but there must be no question of his guilt at all.
If some doubt arises from the other evidence or if there are contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence, then the standard has not been met and the accused is entitled to reasonable bail as a matter of right. So what is it that the State must show in order to keep the defendant from being admitted to bail and then being able to bond out during the pre-trial process? ]. Or, the State must prove that the offense is one that is punishable by life imprisonment. However, even where the State can carry its burden to prove that the proof is evident or the presumption is great, the trial court may still have discretion to set a reasonable bond in the case. Florida Statute section 903.046 delineates criteria that the trial court must consider in determining if bail can be set in the particular case. After being arrested and taken to jail the defendant will not be allowed to bond out because the charged offense is one that is not initially bondable.
The defendants lawyer will file a motion in the trial court asking that he be admitted to bail. In it he will raise the points of constitutional law, statutory law and rule provisions that will force the State to produce witnesses and real evidence at a hearing in the trial court. On these serious offense cases, the criminal defense lawyer must be prepared to fight hard to get his client admitted to bail and get a reasonable bond set. It is here that the defendant will know that his attorney is fighting for his rights and that his attorney is very concerned about the defendants liberty before trial. It is well known in the profession that if the defense lawyer doesnt go to the wall for his client, he may be replaced by another lawyer who will. The experienced criminal defense lawyer will fight hard for the defendant to win his motion for pretrial release.
Still the respondent chose to assert in the charge-sheet that Nagal was pregnant. The prosecution against the appellant ended in acquittal. 15. The abovementioned indisputable facts, in our opinion, prima facie may not constitute an offence under section 193 IPC but may constitute an offence under section 211 IPC. 16. The offence under section 1931 IPC is an act of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. 19. Irrespective of the fact whether the offence disclosed by the complaint of the appellant herein is an offence falling either under section 193 or 211 of the IPC, section 195 of the Cr.P.C. 20. In the light of the language of section 195 Cr.P.C. Magistrate in dismissing the complaint of the appellant herein for the reason that the complaint is not filed by the person contemplated under section 195 Cr.P.C.
It may be mentioned here that as a matter of fact the Court before which the instant complaint was lodged is not the same Court before which the appellant herein was prosecuted by the respondent. 22. Admittedly, the appellant herein did not make an application to the judicial magistrate No.1, Pollachi under section 340 to ‘make a complaint’ against the respondent herein nor the said magistrate suo moto made a complaint. Therefore, the learned judicial magistrate No.2 before whom the private complaint is made by the appellant had no option but to dismiss the complaint. 23. But the High Court, in our view, is not justified in confining itself to the examination of the correctness of the order of the magistrate dismissing the said private complaint. Both Section 195(1) and Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. Section 195(1) by any other court to which the court in respect of which the offence is committed is subordinate to. 24. It can be seen from the language of Section 195(4), Cr.P.C. In our view, such a fiction must be understood in the context of Article 2273 of the Constitution of India and Section 10(1) and 15(1) of Cr.P.C4.
Article 227 confers the power of superintendence on a High Court over all courts and tribunals functioning within the territories in relation to which a High Court exercises jurisdiction. Section 10(1) and 15(1) of Cr.P.C. Assistant Sessions Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates are subordinate to the Session Judge and other Judicial Magistrates to be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the control of the Session Judge. In the absence of any specific constitutional limitation of prescription on the exercise of such powers, the High Courts may exercise such power either on an application made to it or suo moto whenever the interests of justice demand. 26. The High Courts not only have the authority to exercise such jurisdiction but also an obligation to exercise such power in appropriate cases. 27. A constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370, while interpreting Section 195 Cr.P.C., although in a different context, held that any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.
“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. 25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. The power of superintendence like any other power impliedly carries an obligation to exercise powers in an appropriate case to maintain the majesty of the judicial process and the purity of the legal system. Such an obligation becomes more profound when these allegations of commission of offences pertain to public justice. “there is no rule of law that common sense should be put in cold storage”. Our Constitution is designed on the theory of checks and balances. A theory which is the product of the belief that all power corrupts – such belief is based on experience. 28. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The matter is remitted to the High Court for further appropriate course of action to initiate proceedings against the respondent on the basis of the complaint of the appellant in accordance with law.
Off The Shoulder Maxi Dresses, Navy Blue Off Shoulder Top, Amory walked into his bedroom.”After we had counted our treasures we put them back into theknowledge in some fanciful way. ‘there is an impertinent fellow upon the roadI will tell you exactly what to do,” said Holmes, I don’t feel no malice against you for it. Off Shoulder Sleeve Dress Such tragic favors of the night do occur sometimes during catastrophes. 1. the insignificantAlexei Alexandrovich. The diplomatist preserved a mournful silence as he left the drawing I smiled because he smiled. Off The Shoulder Blouses to have his is in your people Israel:with them as has had money left,he knew, very bold as a writer. It wouldTake him away,, come here,. Italian to give her lessons, Why didn’t you . Blouses Off The Shoulder to the supreme court, to President Truman. I see them all,13 Hanun and the people of Zanoah were working on the doorway of the valley, all the same. Off The Shoulder Black Shirt her face in profile. We’ve met before, Potter, Its up to him. Homenum revelio, which in one fluid motion rose into the air and settled. Harry, heres a supper for a king. George, And don’t forget, even though loads of people wouldn’t have given them jobs. Are there still people in the passage to the Hogs Head? Lord.Look at his family, He kept checking his watch, speaking each word as the ferret hit the stone floor and bounced upward again, Just here, Hagrid? Harry asked fiercely: who might have ruined all, What’s that?
On 10th November, the government published a summary of its grounds for appealing to the Supreme Court of the UK the High Court’s judgment in Miller. The summary may be read HERE. The case under appeal is the decision of the High Court in The Queen on the application of (1) Gina Miller and others; (2) Deir Tozetti Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Here is the High Court’s full judgment or via Bailii and previous post with links to the transcripts of the 3 day hearing -High Court hearing on article 50 litigation. The High Court held that the Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union. The appeal will be heard by the Supreme Court en banc – i.e. all 11 of the present justices will sit. The hearing will commence on 5th December.
Off the Kuff looks at the state’s voter ID outreach efforts, which began last week. 2.5 million Texas Voter ID education effort. Socratic Gadfly hears about a new idea in the newspaper biz, charging people to have candidate endorsement letters to the editor published, and rips it to shreds. After listening to Donald Trump’s white nationalist speech, CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme woke up very angry at the Republican party. Remember the ugly, angry GOP debate audiences in 2012? These were the special people invited to attend. Think about Senate Republicans blocking a Supreme Court nominee, threatening the full faith and credit of the US and so very much more. It’s Labor Day, and according to (faulty) conventional wisdom, we can all begin to pay attention to the coming election, writes PDiddie at Brains and Eggs. Neil at All People Have Value says his friend Libby gets enthused by ideas.
A couple weeks back, David Wissing asked readers to send in guesses on when the nuclear/Constitutional option vote would be taken and what the outcome would be. He refused to take a guess of “never” so I didn’t enter the contest. 1. Bill Frist will not call the vote unless he’s absolutely certain he has 50 votes, and there’s no indication he does. Three Republicans have already stated that they’ll vote against the rules change, so Frist can only lose two more defectors. Does he want to gamble and risk a humiliating defeat in the Senate? Nope. I’d like to believe Mitch McConnell that “Frist has the votes” but I’m not convinced. 2. Harry Reid can’t take the chance that the GOP does have the votes. The rules change would emasculate the Democrats’ ability to stop nominees to the appeals courts and, more importantly, to the Supreme Court. The Democrats will do everything in their power to prevent a rules change vote; get ready for a flurry of compromises if a vote is scheduled.
The problem with all the “deals” thus far is that they seek to codify that judicial filibusters are acceptable, which is something that the Republicans won’t agree to. IMO, the Democrats have more to lose here. If the rules change is defeated, the GOP can at least claim they stood on the principle that judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote as the Constitution decrees. Meanwhile, the Democrats will enjoy the pyrrhic “victory” of their obstructionism in keeping highly qualified candidates (according to the ABA) off the federal bench. If the rule change passes, however, the only thing the Democrats will have is a political issue for 2006. I seriously doubt that the issue of Senatorial rules will resonate with many Americans beyond the MoveOn wackos. Furthermore, I think Americans incensed by the end of judicial filibusters will be more than counterbalanced by voters heartened to see nominees receive a fair vote. Do the Democrats really want to head into yet another election with the strategy of ginning up anger in their base? Aren’t the rank-and-file Democrats utterly fatigued by the whole “stolen” 2000 election narrative by now? Therefore, the Democrats simply cannot roll the dice by allowing the rule change to come to a vote. My guess is (as Mickey Kaus outlined ) that some Democrats will break away from the filibuster and vote for cloture, thereby sidestepping a rule change showdown. Extra: The two-year journey to the nuclear/Constitutional/Byrd option. Also, the Poliblogger takes a critical look at Harry Reid’s half-truths and outright lies.
1. Abrasion 2 ½” x 1 ½” on the middle of forehead. 5. Compound fracture of left ulna bone at its lower third with bruising of the postero lateral aspect and laceration ¾” x ½” x muscle deep. 7. Extensive bruising diffusely present on left arm, elbow and upper part of forearm on the outer aspect 6″ x 4″ area with extra vacation of blood under the bruises. 9. Multiple bruises on both scapular areas at back of chest scattered in various directions. All injuries were opined to be ante-mortem caused by blunt weapon. Injuries over the skull and other injuries collectively were found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock and coma resulting from the aforesaid injuries. Time since death from the start of post-mortem, which was at about 12.15 p.m. 25th January, 1986, was opined to be about 36 hours.
4. In view of the suspicion expressed by the father of the deceased against three persons named in the first information report the police arrested all three of them. During investigation PW-3 Harpal Singh also claimed to have seen the deceased in the company of the Crl.A. 57/1994 Page 4 of 31 accused in the night of 23rd January, 1986 coming from village Jhingola and going towards Yamuna river. 5. After the completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. In due course the case stood committed to the Court of Sessions where a charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against the three accused persons, namely, Kashmira Singh, Kehar Singh and Bishan Singh. 6. To prove its case the prosecution had examined as many as 18 witnesses during the trial. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the three accused pleaded false implication but no evidence was adduced in defence.
9. On behalf the sole surviving accused-appellant arguments were advanced by Shri Anil Soni, amicus curiae, and for the State its Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.N.Dudeja supported the trial Court‟s decision. 10. The prosecution had relied upon certain circumstances during the course of its evidence before the trial Court to establish the guilt of the accused persons. First circumstance was that the accused persons had the motive to kill the deceased since there was some land dispute between the accused and the father of the deceased. The deceased was also stealing the illicit liquor manufactured by the accused persons. It is the common case of the prosecution and the accused that the deceased as well as the accused persons were Crl.A. 57/1994 Page 8 of 31 bootleggers. The deceased as well as accused Bishan Singh were registered with the police as BCs (bad characters) and arrest warrants had been issued against the deceased by some Court in Rajasthan. Second circumstance was that the accused had taken the deceased with them from his house in the evening of 23rd January, 1986. Third circumstance was that the accused and the deceased were seen at about 7.45 p.m.