Idaho Criminal Defense Legal Questions

Want a good answer? Ask a thorough question starting with "Who, What, When, How, Will I or Do I".
Then, add details. This will help you get a quicker and better answer.
Question field is required
Explanation field is required
A valid US zip code is required Validating the Zip Code.
Question type field is required
Question type field is required
1
Ask a Question

2
Details

3
Submit
1
Ask a Question

2
Submit
Fullname is required
A valid email address is required.
Receive a follow-up from lawyers after your question is answered
A valid phone number is required
Select the best time for you to receive a follow-up call from a lawyer after your question is answered. (Required field)
to
Invalid Time

*Required fields

Question
Description
By submitting your question, you understand and agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy for use of the site. Do not include any personal information including name, email or other identifying details in your question or question details. An attorney-client relationship is not being established and you are not a prospective client of any attorney who responds to your question. No question, answer, or discussion of any kind facilitated on this site is confidential or legal advice. Questions answered are randomly selected based on general consumer interest and not all are addressed. Questions may display online and be archived by Martindale-Hubbell.
27 legal questions have been posted about criminal law by real users in Idaho. Ask your question and dive into the knowledge of attorneys who handle your issue regularly. Similar topics to explore also include theft, weapons charges, and death penalty. All topics and other states can be accessed in the dropdowns below.

Can you suggest me a research question for an essay, the topic of which is preventive detention.

Answered 14 years and 4 months ago by David Byron Bice (Unclaimed Profile)   |   1 Answer   |  Legal Topics: Criminal Defense
Is the purpose of the criminal justice system best served through its current use of incarceration and fines as the primary tool to deter or punish criminal activity or have preventative detention / intervention programs proven to be successful?
Is the purpose of the criminal justice system best served through its current use of incarceration and fines as the primary tool to deter or punish... Read More
O.J. Simpson was charged with first degree murder in the state court in California. The jury found him "Not Guilty." A "not guilty" verdict means the state failed to prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof in all criminal prosecutions. Criminal cases are brought on behalf of the citizens of a particular state or federal district, not by the victims or their families. After O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal case, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman sued him in the state (not federal) court in California for wrongfully causing their deaths. Civil lawsuits for wrongful death are tried for money damages, not to put the defendant in prison. Civil cases are brought in the name of individuals, not in the name of the State. Different evidence was introduced in the O.J. Simpson civil and criminal trials. For example, although O.J. Simpson denied it, evidence was presented in the civil trial that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes that matched shoeprints left at the murder scene. O.J. Simpson exercised his constitutional right against self-incrimination and chose not to testify in the criminal trial. All defendants in criminal cases have this right. In the civil trial, O.J. no longer had such a right because he had been found not guilty of murder and could not be tried again for it. He had to testify when the opposing side called him as a witness. Thus, the jury in the civil case got to hear O.J's testimony while the criminal jury did not. In the criminal case, the jury got to see that the glove left at the scene of the crime did not fit O.J. Simpson. This experiment was not repeated for the civil jury. The jury in the criminal trial got a far stronger portrayal of the problems with the DNA and other scientific evidence in the case, and the poor management of the crime scene, than did the civil jury. And the criminal jury got to hear the false testimony of Los Angeles police officer Mark Furman, who later admitted lying and pleaded guilty to perjury. Finally, the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases is different. In criminal cases, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." There is also a presumption of innocence that stays with the defendant until and unless the jury returns a guilty verdict. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence," which essentially means "more likely than not," or put another way, proof by 51% or more. The jury's verdict in the civil case was not that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder, but that he was liable for (which essentially means responsible for causing) the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. In light of the different evidence presented, burdens of proof and ultimate issues the juries were called upon to decide, the verdicts in the criminal and civil trials were not really all that inconsistent. ... Read More
O.J. Simpson was charged with first degree murder in the state court in California. The jury found him "Not Guilty." A "not guilty" verdict means... Read More