Palisade Felony Lawyer, Colorado, page 3
Not enough matches for Palisade Felony lawyer.
Below are all Palisade Criminal lawyers.
619 Main Street, Fruita, CO 81521
Profile LAWPOINTS™34/100
LAWPOINTS™ measure the overall completeness of a Lawyer's profile. More complete profiles are ranked higher and help visitors select the right lawyer faster.
We help paid Members build more complete and informative profiles.
LAWPOINTS™ do not measure a Lawyer's reputation.
More Info for Lawyers
We help paid Members build more complete and informative profiles.
LAWPOINTS™ do not measure a Lawyer's reputation.
More Info for Lawyers
TIPS
Easily find Palisade Felony Lawyers and Palisade Felony Law Firms. For more attorneys, search all Criminal areas including DUI-DWI, Expungement, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime, Traffic and Juvenile Law attorneys.
LEGAL TERMS
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main r... (more...)
Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main reason why evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of a deciding a case --for example, hearsay evidence, or an expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. Evidence will also be declared inadmissible if it suffers from some other defect--for example, as compared to its value, it will take too long to present or risks enflaming the jury, as might be the case with graphic pictures of a homicide victim. In addition, in criminal cases, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible. Because the rules of evidence are so complicated (and because contesting lawyers waste so much time arguing over them) there is a strong trend towards using mediation or arbitration to resolve civil disputes. In mediation and arbitration, virtually all evidence can be considered. See evidence, admissible evidence.
CONTINGENCY FEE
A method of paying a lawyer for legal representation by which, instead of an hourly or per job fee, the lawyer receives a percentage of the money her client obt... (more...)
A method of paying a lawyer for legal representation by which, instead of an hourly or per job fee, the lawyer receives a percentage of the money her client obtains after settling or winning the case. Often contingency fee agreements -- which are most commonly used in personal injury cases -- award the successful lawyer between 20% and 50% of the amount recovered. Lawyers representing defendants charged with crimes may not charge contingency fees. In most states, contingency fee agreements must be in writing.
ACQUITTAL
A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusio... (more...)
A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
MOTION IN LIMINE
A request submitted to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings. A motion in limine is usually made by a party when simply ... (more...)
A request submitted to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings. A motion in limine is usually made by a party when simply the mention of the evidence would prejudice the jury against that party, even if the judge later instructed the jury to disregard the evidence. For example, if a defendant in a criminal trial were questioned and confessed to the crime without having been read his Miranda rights, his lawyer would file a motion in limine to keep evidence of the confession out of the trial.
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced '... (more...)
The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced 'to a moral certainty.' The jury must be convinced that the defendant committed each element of the crime before returning a guilty verdict.
PROSECUTOR
A lawyer who works for the local, state or federal government to bring and litigate criminal cases.
DIRECTED VERDICT
A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the... (more...)
A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the defendant. A directed verdict is usually made because the judge concludes the plaintiff has failed to offer the minimum amount of evidence to prove her case even if there were no opposition. In other words, the judge is saying that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiff's favor. In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a judgement of acquittal for the defendant.
ACTUS REUS
Latin for a 'guilty act.' The actus reus is the act which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime. For ... (more...)
Latin for a 'guilty act.' The actus reus is the act which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime. For example, the crime of theft requires physically taking something (the actus reus) coupled with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the object (the mental state, or mens rea).
MCNAGHTEN RULE
The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wron... (more...)
The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wrong at the time he committed the crime. For example, a delusional psychotic who believed that his assaultive acts were in response to the will of God would not be criminally responsible for his acts.
SAMPLE LEGAL CASES
People v. Cook
... Counts one through four: sexual exploitation of children, class three felony, § 18-6-403(3)(a),
CRS2008. ... Count five: sexual assault on a child — victim less than 15 — pattern of abuse, class
three felony, § 18-3-405(1), (2)(d), CRS2008. Defendant was acquitted. ...
Roberts v. People
... The court of appeals upheld both his conviction of class-three-felony theft and his mandatorily
aggravated sentence, reasoning that the evidence supported the commission of a single offense
of "theft by deception," which continued, and included everything taken by Roberts ...
People v. Curren
... Opinion by Judge ROY. The prosecution appeals from an order granting defendant John Estel
Curren's Crim. P. 35(c) motion which vacated his conviction on two counts of felony first degree
murder, and ordered a new trial based on an actual conflict of interest of trial counsel. ...
FILTER BY:
- Free Consultation
- Male
- Female
- Suspended
PRACTICE AREAS
- Accident & Injury
- Bankruptcy & Debt
- Business
- Civil & Human Rights
- Consumer Rights
- Criminal
- -DUI-DWI
- -Expungement
- Felony
- -Misdemeanor
- -RICO Act
- -White Collar Crime
- -Traffic
- -Juvenile Law
- Divorce & Family Law
- Employment
- Environmental Law
- Estate
- Government
- Health Care
- Immigration
- Industry Specialties
- Intellectual Property
- International
- Lawsuit & Dispute
- Mass Torts
- Motor Vehicle
- Real Estate
- Tax
- Other