No,
In order to press charges against an individual or entity you require "Corpus Delicti" (Latin for body of crime), which is a broad summary refers to the issue that in order to process charges a crime needs to have occurred.
This would seem simple in nature if you are staring at broken window, however in our society we follow an "innocent until proven guilty" approach meaning unless you can link the crime and the person/entity together, legally speaking no crime has taken place.
References:
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti
Experience:
3 Year law
JG.
When a judge dismisses the charges against you in court, it is typically referred to as a "dismissal." This can occur for various reasons, such as lack of evidence, procedural issues, or the prosecution's failure to prove the case. A dismissal can be with or without prejudice, affecting whether the charges can be refiled in the future.
There is no statute of limitations on murder in Texas. The lack of evidence would be the reason they haven't brought charges.
It is an order issued by a judge actually dismissing the charges that were brought in the case - usually for some legal insufficiency, or lack of evidence, of the case itself. There are two types of dismissal: Dismissal WITH Prejudice, and Dismissal WITHOUT Prejudice. WITH prejudice means that the same charges cannot be re-instituted and brought before the court again,. WITHOUT Prejudice means that the charges MAY be re-instituted and brought before court again AFTER the legal insufficiency is cured.
All citizens are protected from unlawful detention by habeas corpus. Habeas corpus states that if there is no evidence against a person that officers can not arrest them.
"Dropped indicted" typically refers to a situation where charges that were formally brought against a defendant are dismissed by a court. This means that the legal proceedings against the individual will not continue, and they are no longer facing those specific charges. It can occur for various reasons, including lack of evidence or procedural issues. Essentially, it signifies that the case is closed without a trial or conviction.
YES! THE PARENT CAN FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE 18 YEAR OLD.IN FACT THE STATE CAN PICK UP THE CHARGES WITHOUT YOUR PARENTS CONSENT WHICH WOULD BE CORRUPION OF A MINOR. IT COULD BE RAPE CHARGES AGAINST THE 18 YEAR OLD!
It is against the law to do so (at least Canada and the US). Any major change (new charges, new evidence, etc.) needs to be brought forward to both sides. This is to allow the defendant and the plaintiff to have an equal opportunity at pleading their case. Failure to follow that rule, will result in the dismissal of whatever has been added to the case(new charges, new evidence, etc.) and may even result in a mistrial.
Yes, it is possible to confess to a crime without any evidence against you. However, it is important to note that a confession alone is not sufficient to prove guilt in a court of law. Other evidence, such as physical evidence or witness testimony, is typically needed to secure a conviction.
It usually means that the charges that were made, or the charge that was brought, is not substantiated/supported by the evidence presented.
It depends on how it was dismissed Dismissed without predjudice means that the charges can be re-filed. Usually this is used when the Judge thinks there is lack of evidence for a conviction. If more evidence is found later, the charges can be re-filed. Dismissed with predjudice means that charges can not be refiled.
If there is no evidence of possession of a knife, it weakens any claims or charges related to its use or ownership. Legal proceedings would likely focus on establishing intent or involvement in an incident without physical evidence. In such cases, witness testimonies or circumstantial evidence might be used to support allegations, but the lack of direct evidence could lead to a dismissal of charges or a not-guilty verdict. Overall, the absence of evidence can significantly impact the outcome of legal matters.
The Continental Congress brought nearly 30 charges against King George III. These included accusations of taxing the Colonies without their consent, housing troops without their permission, refusing to let them trade with other countries, and changing the Colonies' government.