Quick verdicts in court cases are not necessarily indicative of guilt. Verdicts can be reached quickly if the evidence is clear and convincing, but a quick verdict does not necessarily mean the defendant is guilty. It is important to consider all the evidence presented in a case before drawing conclusions about guilt or innocence.
Socrates was found guilty of impiety and corrupting the youth by an Athenian court in 399 BC. He was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock. However, many scholars believe that these charges were unjustified and that Socrates was a victim of political scapegoating.
Yes. By definition, Socrates was indeed guilty of impiety because he openly criticized religion and did not show the reverence to the gods that most Greeks were accustomed to giving. Whether that should have been a punishable offense, however, is a matter for debate.
Yes, that was the cleverness of them - and that one of the two charges carried the death sentence. Recognising the futility of trying to challenge the charges, he simply said in response that he should be rewarded for his services to the state, which were many as magistrate and army service.
In the Monsanto court cases against farmers, key developments include legal battles over patent infringement, disputes regarding genetically modified seeds, and concerns about the impact on traditional farming practices. Farmers have raised issues about seed saving and cross-contamination, leading to complex legal challenges and debates over intellectual property rights in agriculture.
Socrates was forced to drink poison, hemlock, because he was found guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety towards the city's gods. He refused to flee the city or accept exile, choosing instead to abide by the decision of the court and uphold his principles of justice and obedience to the law.
The percentage of defendants found not guilty in court cases varies, but on average, it is around 20-25.
In traffic court, "disposed" refers to how a case is resolved or concluded. This can include various outcomes such as guilty or not guilty verdicts, plea agreements, or dismissals. Essentially, it indicates that the court has made a final decision regarding the traffic violation in question.
Well the opinions of the supreme court are really important. They can tell if your guilty or not.
Civil cases have no jail/prison time attached to them. The decisions usually involve money amounts as punitive damages.
All cases start out in lower local courts to be heard. After the initial verdict the party that feels that they should have gotten a different outcome they will appeal. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals and the verdicts can be fought all the way to them.
If the court of appeals finds a person guilty it is usually their last recourse. An attorney will be able to help the defendant decide what to do in the case they are found guilty.
Yes they will. The Supreme Court ruled more than 30 years ago that the Constitution does not ban less than unanimous verdicts.
In court, you must either plead guilty or not guilty to the charges against you.
The US Supreme Court's decisions (or verdicts) are called opinions.
Depending on the charge you can usually plead guilty and send in a fine.
Yes, Violation of a Protection Order is a violation of a court order. Although the question doesn't say so, Protection Orders are usually issued in Domestic Violence cases. In all likliehood, you will draw some jail time.
reaonable suspicion