When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States v. Bagley - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bagley

    The District Court, in denying to vacate Bagley's sentence, had found that had the existence of the agreements been disclosed during trial, the disclosure would have had no effect upon its finding that the Government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent was guilty of the offenses for which he had been convicted. [6]

  3. Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

    Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. [1] It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty ...

  4. R v Lifchus - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Lifchus

    R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the legal basis of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal law.Cory J outlined several core principles of the reasonable doubt standard and provided a list of points that must be explained to a jury when they are to consider the standard.

  5. Brady v. Maryland - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

    A defendant's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is "material" if "there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would ...

  6. Leland v. Oregon - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_v._Oregon

    Oregon law required the defendant required proof of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. The case claimed that the "statute in effect requires a defendant pleading insanity to establish his innocence by disproving beyond a reasonable doubt elements of the crime necessary to a verdict of guilty, and that the statute is therefore violative of that ...

  7. Sandstrom v. Montana - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandstrom_v._Montana

    Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the prosecution's burden of proof of the mental element of a crime by striking down a jury instruction that "the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts". [1]

  8. Reasonable Doubt Season 2 Trailer Enlists Morris ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/reasonable-doubt-sets-season-2...

    Reasonable Doubt’s law office is swooning at its newest recruit, Morris Chestnut, in a newly released trailer for Season 2. The Resident alum’s defense lawyer, Corey Cash, is brought on board ...

  9. Cunningham v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunningham_v._California

    Washington (2004), applies to California's determinate sentencing law, and requires that the facts necessary to support imposing the upper term of imprisonment under that scheme be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Court membership; Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia