0
What else can I help you with?
Which son did Marie Antoinette sexually abuse?
This was a vicious excuse during Marie Antoinette's trial to have the jury (who were already scared to death their heads might role next) vote to have her executed (since evidence of treason for which she was tried was lacking!). This never actually happened.The child in question, Louis Charles, was taken away from Marie Antoinette after Louis XVI was executed and he was put under the custody of a certain monsieur Antoine Simon who abused him and made him drink alcohol. He forced the child to sign a document stating his own mother had sexually abused him.Even the jury was appalled by this during Marie Antoinette's trial because they knew exactly how this "evidence" had been gained. Therefore it was thrust aside and never used as official evidence in the case.
How long did Louis XVI's trial last?
King Louis XVI reigned from 1774 to 1793.
What are some disadvantages of trial by ordeal?
what is the disadcantages of trial by ordeal
Did Marie Antoinettes children survive the revolution?
Louis XVI and Marie-Antionette had two daughters and two sons. Two of these died before the Revolution. The two royal children alive during the Revolution were Louis the Dauphin, heir to the Throne, and Marie-Therese. Marie-Therese and Louis were separated from their parents when they were imprisoned (both their parents were put on trial and executed). The Dauphin died in prison; it is not clear whether it was a deliberate murder or whether he simply died of illness in the unsanitary conditions of the prison. He was never put on trial. Louis was later known as "Louis XVII" despite the fact that he was never crowned as King. A number of people attempted to impersonate him in later life and claim the French throne. Marie-Therese survived the Revolution and died in 1851.
What was the official reason for Louis XVI's execution?
Inciting counterrevolution Well, he was acused of treason and the judges (who were all afraid of their own heads would soon be separated from their necks if they voted not guilty), voted guilty. At that time, all enemies to the revolution were executed. Mostly without trial, so the judges had every right to be afraid. There was never any evidence found that Louis XVI was actually guilty of treason, so the trial was all hot air, and even beforew the trial even begun, the verdict was already clear: death penalty. Now we know that Louis XVI was indeed guilty of treason, but only to save the lives of his children and family and the monarchy of which he was King. Louis XVI had always been a very good man and King. Unfortunately, the revolution blamed all that WA swrong in the country on the King and Queen and believed the only way to get a better life, was to end that of their monarchs so they would never be able to recapture the reign of France again. The French would soon learn that they were wrong and the revolution was a disaster.
When you do get the evidence against you fter being arrested for felony?
YOU never "get" the evidence. Your defense attorney will have it disclosed to him during the "discovery phase" of the preliminaries to your trial.
Is it permissible for new evidence to be introduced during a trial?
Yes, it is generally permissible for new evidence to be introduced during a trial, as long as it is relevant to the case and meets the rules of evidence.
What evidence was presented during the thestrial to support the prosecution's case?
During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence such as witness testimonies, physical evidence like DNA or fingerprints, and any relevant documents or records that supported their case against the defendant.
Can a judge refuse to look at evidence presented during a trial?
No, a judge cannot refuse to look at evidence presented during a trial. It is their responsibility to consider all relevant evidence in making a fair and just decision.
How much evidence is needed to convict or rule against a civil trial?
The difference is: in civil trials it is a "preponderance of evidence," whereas in a criminal trial it is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
What are the three pieces of evidence used against Martha carrier at her trial?
During Martha Carrier's trial in 1692, three main pieces of evidence were used against her: testimonies from several accusers who claimed she had harmed them through witchcraft, the alleged appearance of her spirit during the trial, and her own confession, which was extracted under duress. Additionally, her status as a strong and outspoken woman in a Puritan society contributed to the perception of her as a witch. These factors combined to paint her as a threat to the community.
How can the defense attorney effectively introduce new evidence during the trial to support their case?
The defense attorney can effectively introduce new evidence during the trial by following the rules of evidence, seeking permission from the judge, and presenting the evidence in a clear and convincing manner to support their case.
Is it permissible to introduce new evidence during a trial?
Yes, it is generally permissible to introduce new evidence during a trial, but there are rules and procedures that govern the admissibility of such evidence. The judge has the discretion to allow or exclude new evidence based on factors such as relevance, reliability, and fairness to both parties.
Can a judge allow testimony against someone based on a trial that was dismissed?
A trial cannot be dismissed. A case can be dismissed before it goes to trial. A judge can allow testimony if it is within the bounds of admissible evidence, regardless of whether or not that evidence was presented at a prior hearing or trial.
Why was Louis Riel guilty of treason I need a valid argument for a grade 8 Canadian history project it is for a mock trial of Louis riels trial i am the prosecutor against riel?
billy goat
Which term refers to an official examination of available evidence in a court of law?
The term you are looking for is "trial." During a trial, evidence is presented and examined to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
What can you do if the judge did not let you speak or say information about your case that would be helpful?
If you had a trial, and were not permitted to present evidence during the trial, and there was no legal reason that the evidence was inadmissible, and you lost, you can appeal.
