In CA, can prior convictions be used against a witness in a criminal trial?  If so, under what circumstances?
89539
Not so sure Max knows what he's talking about.\n\nCertain prior convictions can be "used against" a witness in a criminal trial.  Generally, they would be brought up if they tend to discredit the witness.  \n\nA conviction for being a minor in possession of alcohol is probably not going to be all that relevant if the witness is talking about what he/she saw during a burglary, for example.  I'm also not so sure that misdemeanor convictions are brought up anyway (but they might be...just don't remember).\n\nPersons convicted of felonies are almost certainly going to have that thrown in their face, no matter what the crime was.  \n\nThis is just from my experience, I'm not a lawyer and it's entirely possible I'm screwed up here on one or more of my facts, but I think I've got them straight.
471598
They can have you serve the time at any point if you've already been convicted/pled.  Statue of limitations only prevent a case from being tried, nothing else.  Since the trial already occured statue of limitations have no bearing on the situation.
314023
You say you can prove that the politicians were involved- but why didn;t you use it in your trial so that you were not convicted??  If you are going to try and fight it now it's gonna be more difficult and you are going to need a great lawyer.  Be prepared to be riddiculed and harassed, amoung other things...\n\nYou need to make your evidence concrete- DO NOT USE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!!  Be prepared to fight and don't give up- take it to the higher courts.\n\nTry <www.wrongfulconvictions.com> it's a website that is based out of the University of Miami that run a wrongful convictions program- they investigate possible wrongful convictions and there are some great links on their site to other sources of information for you.
762886
Nope. In the US, you can't be tried twice for the same charge if you've been acquitted.
49761
Hard to say without knowing what context you've heard/seen it in.\n\nIn California, defendants who are charged with felonies are given a preliminary hearing before a judge to determine if there's sufficient information to indicate the defendant did what the government is alleging.  If there is, the defendant is "bound over" for trial in superior court.  Maybe this is a similar thing, but you really need to provide some additional details to get a solid answer.
148877
He's asking about California.  \n\nThe question is nonsense, however.  Section 1538.5 of the Penal Code is the statutory mechanism that allows unlawfully obtained evidence to be suppressed (kept out of court).  A 1538.5 hearing is held at the request of the defendant to determine if the government followed "the rules" when it obtained evidence to be used against a defendant in a criminal case.\n\nFor example, if a defendant is charged with possession of drugs based on a search of his person, the defense may file a 1538.5 motion to challenge the search.  The defendant may take the position that the search was unlawful and ask the Court to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful search.  \n\nIn Danny's case, a 1538.5 motion might be filed to contest the legality of the checkpoint, the observations of his sobriety made by the officer who initially detained him, the observations made by the officer who evaluated him and ultimately arrested him, and/or the function of the breath machine or other chemical testing procedure.  There might even be more issues, but those are the significant ones.\n\nSo while the question really doesn't make sense, it at least shows the poster has an idea of what's going on.  A 1538.5 hearing is used to determine if the government did the things it's allowed to do by law and didn't violate anyone's constitutional rights.\n\nDanny - see my other answer to your first question.  I applaud your interest in safeguarding your rights.  However, if you acknowledge (even if only to yourself) that you were driving in violation of the laws in California concerning DUI (driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher) then I'm left feeling like you need to accept that you potentially could have killed someone (or yourself) that night, and take your lumps.  If you think you can get off on a technicality, go for it if you want.  But really...you know if you were guilty or not, no matter what the legal beagles end up saying, and if you should be punished for making a bad decision, then take it and move on.  I know it's expensive and I know it has a *profound* impact on your life...but the impact you might have had on other lives that night makes your concerns look childish.\n\nEDIT 2/12/06: James F...I know, but that does not stop defendants from filing supppression motions against them.
890934
That all depends... If the inconsistency reinforces the prosecutions case, nothing, if it helps acquit the defendant, the witness will be charged with perjury.
587543
The only way to avoid a trial would be if you were to plead guilty. even when there are so many "witnesses, it is your right to br tried in a court of law to find you guilty or not guilty.
956083
You are considered by law innocent unless you are convicted and found guilty.\n\nBut they can re-file when the witness can testify again
350361
A woman can be punished by custodial sentence in the exact same way a man can although it will depend entirely on the circumstances leading up to the alleged assault. If it can be proved that the woman was abused prior to the attack than this would provide justifiable motive the problem is you need witness's to verify they saw the "abuse" take place, and remember also that the man must provide two points of law i.e.witness testimony, camera evidence, DNA evidence, in order to secure a conviction. failure on his part to provide such evidence will allow for "reasonable doubt" to be placed on the original case go and see a decent Criminal Solicitor and he will explain it better to you as he will be able to check witness statements and prepare you better for the impending court date Good luck.
1031573
You are not the first person that has happened too...no, you didn't get a fair trial.  You can talk to the "head" judge...the chief justice..or whatever they call him where you are.  It's a Constitutional right..you are guaranteed a fair trial, and if the judge didn't hear half of the testimony....well, that's not fair then, is it...whether you won or lost.  You could call the (shudder) ACLU....I can't believe I just recommended that....
67013
The term "expungement" is somewhat of a misnomer and you must be careful to check out the law governing expungment in your state.  An expungment basically means that your conviction is set aside, you enter a new plea of not guilty and the case is dismissed.  The court's file is public record and anybody can still look up the case.\n\nIn California, the defendant is still required to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office or for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting\nwith the California State Lottery.  So if you apply for a contractor's license in California, you still have to disclose the conviction despite the expungement.\n\nYour state may have different limitations on the effectiveness of an expungement.
826458
nothing, our system of law says that a person cannot be tried twice for the same case, double jeopardy or autrefois acquit (French for 'previously acquitted'), so even though he confessed he would have to be charged on another offense. He could be jailed for perjury, a serious offense but not on murder charges.
169250
caution?\n\nif you got some sort of court proceding, you'll still have a record for the police and anyone of importance to see, but to other your slate is wiped clean, but it also depends on the offense
467802
He or she can probably get into more trouble by withholding evidence.  The words that come to mind are: accessory after the fact.  I believe that could apply here.
897404
That depends.  Were you charged with something or did you write a statement as a witness.  If you are charged with something you can always invoke your rights at any time.  Even if you invoke your rights they can still use your written statement against you.  If you were only a witness (or a victim) you can not "plead the 5th".  Then again, for the most part, they can not make you testify either.
898704
The city is required to present evidence that the defendant was in violation of the city ordinance prior to the defendant presenting any evidence.\n\nThe city will call their first witness and will ask questions necessary to bring out all the facts the witness has knowledge of concerning the case.  After the city attorney has asked questions, the defendant will have a right to cross-examine the witness.  During cross-examination, the defendant may not testify or argue with the witness.  At that time the defendant may only ask questions to elicit answers from the witness.  The defendant may only ask for information which deals with the issues of the violation of the ordinance.  After the defendant has completed his examination and the city has completed its examination of the first witness, the city will call their next witness.  The same procedure as to examination is followed with all of the witnesses called by the city.\n\nAfter the city has called all their witnesses they will rest their case.  At that time the defendant has a right to present evidence.  He may call witnesses and if so, he will examine them first and the city attorney will have the right to cross-examine them after the defendant's examination.  During the defendant's examination of the witness, his questions need to be stated in such a way that the witness will give the facts in his answer.\n\nThe defendant may also testify although he is not required to do so and it will not be held against him if he decides not to testify.  If the defendant testifies, he will tell what happened in his own words.  The city attorney will have the right to cross examine him and he is required to answer the city attorney's questions.\n\nAfter the defendant has completed his case and the city has completed their case, the court will make a decision.  If the defendant is found not guilty, the case is over and the defendant's appearance bond will be refunded.  If the defendant is found guilty, the court will assess punishment not to exceed the maximum authorized under the city ordinance plus court costs.If the defendant is found guilty, he has a right to appeal and receive a new trial.  In order to appeal, the defendant must post an appeal bond as set by the court.  The defendant will then have a new trial before a district judge who will make a determination of his innocence or guilt.  In a new trial the judge will make a finding on what is presented and is not bound by any finding of the Municipal Court.  If the defendant is found innocent, his appeal bond will be refunded and the case is over.  If the defendant is found guilty, the district judge will set the fine and costs.  The amount of fine and costs may be more or may be less than what the Municipal Court imposes.  From a finding of guilty in the second trial, the defendant has a right to appeal on the record to the Court of Criminal Appeals. you speaking will help put that rapist away for good! i wish you luck!