5110660
Beschreibung
Mindmap von helmsstaci, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
|
Erstellt von helmsstaci
vor mehr als 8 Jahre
|
|
Our Legal System
- Criminal Law
- Misdemeanors
- Examples
- Larceny (shoplifting)
- Larceny (shoplifting)
- Less serious crimes that are punishable with less than 1 year in prison
- Examples
- Felonies
- Examples
- Homicide aka murder
- Robbery
- Burglary aka breaking & entering
- Burglary aka breaking & entering
- Homicide aka murder
- Examples
- District Law
- US Federal Court System- courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the
United States Constitution or federal statutes.
- US Federal Court System- courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the
United States Constitution or federal statutes.
- Police Investigation- the investigation of criminal activities by the police
- Arrest- seize someone by legal authority and take into custody
- Booking- a procedure at a jail or police station following an arrest in which information about the arrest is entered in the police
register.
- Preliminary Hearing- a hearing after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to
determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial.
- Arraignment- a criminal proceeding at which the defendant is officially called before a court of competent jurisdiction, informed of the offense
charged in the complaint, information, indictment, or other charging document, and asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.
- Trial- a judicial examination and determination of facts and legal issues arising between parties to a civil or criminal action.
- Verdict- the formal decision or finding made by a jury concerning the questions submitted to it during a trial.
- Sentence- the punishment given to a person convicted of a crime.
- Sentence- the punishment given to a person convicted of a crime.
- Verdict- the formal decision or finding made by a jury concerning the questions submitted to it during a trial.
- Trial- a judicial examination and determination of facts and legal issues arising between parties to a civil or criminal action.
- Arraignment- a criminal proceeding at which the defendant is officially called before a court of competent jurisdiction, informed of the offense
charged in the complaint, information, indictment, or other charging document, and asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.
- Preliminary Hearing- a hearing after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to
determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial.
- Booking- a procedure at a jail or police station following an arrest in which information about the arrest is entered in the police
register.
- Arrest- seize someone by legal authority and take into custody
- North Carolina State Court SYstem
- District COurts
- Superior Court
- NC Court of Appeals
- NC Supreme Court
- 1 Chief Justice and 6 other justices= 7 total judges
- 1 Chief Justice and 6 other justices= 7 total judges
- NC Supreme Court
- NC Court of Appeals
- Superior Court
- District COurts
- Misdemeanors
- Administrative Law
- The body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government.
- The body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government.
- Civil Law
- Cases that involve a plaintiff suing another person for damages & money
- Plaintiff- the person filing the lawsuit
- Defendant- the person being sued
- Plaintiff- the person filing the lawsuit
- Cases that involve a plaintiff suing another person for damages & money
- Constitutional Law
- Cases over Constitutional Law
- Gideon v. Wainwright
- Established right to a lawyer for everyone
- Sixth Amedment
- Guarantees right to a lawyer, trial by jury, speedy, public trial
- Guarantees right to a lawyer, trial by jury, speedy, public trial
- Sixth Amedment
- Established right to a lawyer for everyone
- Gideon v. Wainwright
- Cases over Constitutional Law
- US Supreme Court
- Mapp v. Ohio
- it was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal
prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had previously been the law. The
Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the
provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are applicable only to actions of the federal government into
the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
- it was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal
prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had previously been the law. The
Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the
provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are applicable only to actions of the federal government into
the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
- Gideon v. Wainwright
- the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent
defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys. The case extended the
right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to
impose requirements on the federal government, by ruling that this right imposed
those requirements upon the states as well.
- the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states are required under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent
defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys. The case extended the
right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to
impose requirements on the federal government, by ruling that this right imposed
those requirements upon the states as well.
- Miranda v. Arizona
- the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation
by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the
defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and
of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only
understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
- the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation
by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the
defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and
of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only
understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
- Gregg v. Georgia
- it changed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the
United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. Referred to by
a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases[1] and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg, the
Supreme Court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in
order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision
essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972
decision in Furman v. Georgia
- it changed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the
United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. Referred to by
a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases[1] and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg, the
Supreme Court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in
order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision
essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972
decision in Furman v. Georgia
- Mapp v. Ohio
Medienanhänge
Möchten Sie kostenlos Ihre eigenen Mindmaps mit GoConqr erstellen? Mehr erfahren.