what exactly does habeas corpus mean, and what is the time a person can be held before seeing a judge?
538325
Habeus Corpus is defined as a writ requiring an incarcerated person to be brought before a judge for an investigation of the restraint of that person's liberty. Habeus Corpus is used as a means to remedy wrongful arrest. Your son was not wrongfully arrested. There was a bench warrant for his arrest. Therefore a writ of Habeus Corpus does not apply.\nThe fifth amendment protections include freedom from self incrimination, unlawful interrogations and prevention from punishment without due process. I don't see how your sons Fifth Amendment rights were violated. He was lawfully arrested as a result of failure to appear in court, therefore he is lawfully incarcerated.\n\nTo the person who answered before me, the body of the crime is referred to as 'corpus delecti'.
766683
OR stands for Own Recognisance. Person should be trustworthy with no previous criminal record and someone you would trust to show up for court dates without exeption. They must also be trustworthy enough to comply with bail conditions such as no alcohol or drugs
121037
Go straight to your local court house. Not the judge mgistarte, but the courthouse. They will have an office for getting a POA. Protection from abuse order. You will have to explain why you want a POA. its not like court, were the person is innocent till proven guilty. if you are genually afraid for your safety, it normally will be issued .  The office can then explain to you the rest of the details.
185014
You could be subject to arrest.  It depends on the judge.  It would behoove you to show up. At least call if there are circumstances that prevent you from attending, but have a good reason.
627994
Lawyers are appointed or hired representatives of a plaintiff or defendant, but the ultimate responsibility falls upon the plaintiff or defendant himself. \n\nJudges routinely issue what are known as "bench warrants" for individuals who have failed to appear before the court. A bench warrant authorizes any law enforcement officer in the state to take the listed person into custody to appear before the court to answer why he or she failed to report for court.\n\nUsually, once a person brought before the court explains the circumstances surrounding his failure to appear (assuming there is a good reason), no charges are brought against the person. However, if the judge feels that the person was essentially "unexcused", he may find him in contempt of court, a sentence of usually 24-48 hours in jail and/or a fine. \n\nIf your lawyer was truly at fault, you should be fine once you explain the situation to the judge. If at all possible, try to ensure the lawyer will be present and take accountability for the error at the next appearance. If he is unable to or refuses, insist on a notarized letter explaining the error, or report him to your county's bar association.
2880
I've included a link below about its role, and an excerpt below:\n\n"In the Supreme Court, a Judicial Case Conference (a "JCC") is scheduled. A JCC is an informal, off-the-record hearing before a judge to discuss the basics of case and whether there is any prospect for a settlement of the issues. A JCC is also useful for setting dates by which things must happen, such as the exchange of financial information, and for setting a trial date. Both parties must attend the JCC in person along with their lawyers."
34011
An arraignment is the formal appearance of an accused in court for the first time after an arrest or in response to a criminal summons to answer the accusations contained in the complaint or indictment. \n\nAt the arraignment, the judge: \n\n    * Calls the defendant by name for the purpose of completely and accurately identifying him.\n    * Informs the defendant of the charges and the penalty for each charge.\n    * Informs the defendant of his constitutional rights, including his right to counsel.\n    * Receives the defendant’s plea of guilty, not guilty, or in some cases “no contest.”  Pleas of guilty or no contest result in the judge imposing a sentence immediately.  A plea of not guilty usually results in a trial date set within 60 days of the arraignment date for felonies and within 30 days for misdemeanors.\n    * Sets and reviews the conditions for release or bail.\n    * Sets a future court date for a motion, the trial, or any other court proceeding.  For felonies, the preliminary exam must be scheduled within 10 calendar days following the arraignment.
343536
unless time is waved by the defendant it is generally 60 days.  under the bill of rights a defendant is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. during formal arraignment unless you request a prelim.
331157
To allow the defendent to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty (or in some jurisdictions, "no contest").  This lets the judge know how to proceed, when to set a trial date, entertain any pre-trial motions, and set bail as appropriate.
208104
Even though a great deal of time has transpired since the original charge, there is a great probability that a warrant has been issued for failing to appear on the original charge. A person charged with a crime has an obligation to appear before a judge to have the matter resolved. A warrant can be issued at any tiume during that process if a person does not show up to court, even if they have shown up already. I would suggest that you contact the court of origin for your friend and see if there is a warrant. If there isn't one, then he/she is home free.
775704
Sorry, she is required by law to appear on the date, time and at the place shown on the Summons.  She can explain her circumstances to the Judge and she may be excused for said jury duty.  \n\nGood Luck and Take Care
858767
The answer to this question is a bit complex.  So, I will try to explain in two sections -\n\nFirst -  The Common Law\n\nIn the English tradition of Law, there is such a thing as the "common law."  The common law refers to laws that our system of law has assumed to be true since our Founding.\n\nFor example, there is no law that says you cannot steal or kidnap or assault or murder.  These are all parts of the common law.  The common law forbids each of these actions.  It has been this way since the beginning of our regime.\n\nJudges can rely on the common law to hand down their decisions.  In a case of theft, they simply know that theft is illegal under the common law.\n\nThere is a bit of a grey area within the common law though.  The common law must be applied to each case before a judge.  A judge may encounter a case where the common law has not been used before.  For example, before the internet was huge, what if a judge heard a case of a man stealing credit card numbers/identities online?  The judge could then use the common law and apply the criminality of theft in this case even though the common law had never been applied in this way before.\n\nThere isn't much grey area, but judges have the final say on when are where to apply the common law.\n\nSecond - Judicial Activism\n\nJudicial Activism refers to judges creating "laws" by their rulings from the bench.\n\nAn example of this are the Miranda rights I am sure all of you have heard of - "You have the right to remain silent.  You have the right to an attorney, etc."  Basically, the things that police officers say when someone is brought into custody.  In a case before the Supreme Court, a criminal by the name of Miranda claimed that his civil rights were violated because he did not understand all of his rights when dealing the police when he was charged with his crime.  The Supreme Court agreed with him, and thus created a "law" whereby an officer making an arrest had to explicitly tell each criminal their rights when being taken into custody.\n\nThis sort of "law" does not come from the legislature but only from the ruling of the Supreme Court.  In essence, the Court created a new law.  The law has now become each person taken into custody must be explicitly told their rights.\n\nThe heart of your question is whether or not this sort of judicial behavior is right or wrong.\n\nThe long and the short of your answer is that judicial activism is wrong.\n\nI can prove this to you by a simple Platonic test.  Follow these questions and answer honestly, and you will see why.\n\nWhat does a farmer know how to do?  Plant and harvest crops.\n\nWhat does the captain of a ship know how to do?  Pilot a ship.\n\nWhat does a doctor know how to do?  Heal and preserve the body.\n\nWhat does a legislator know how to do?  Create laws.\n\nWhat does a judge know how to do?  See if a law has been broken.\n\nAt the core, each profession human beings have are directed toward a telos (Greek for "end").  If a profession acts out of its end, then foolishness occurs.\n\nWould you go to a farmer if your arm were broken?  No.\n\nWould you go to a doctor if you needed to pilot a ship?  No.\n\nWould you go to a doctor if you needed to plant a crop?  No.\n\nWould you go to a judge if you needed to create a law?  No.\n\nThe role and ultimate end of a judge is to interpret law and see if it were broken.\n\nThe art of creating law belongs to members of the legislator.\n\nAnyone who would disagree would visit a farmer if he or she was sick.
993198
can be held until the state that holds the warrant decides whether or not to come get you.  If they decide not to, you are released, if they decide to come get you, you are obviously held until they arrive.
188578
Are you referring to their scheduling requirements and how often they will hear cases? If so, it depends on the judge, and which district you are in. Easiest way to deal with things is to call up the court itself. Each district has their own rules of the court.
812915
It's a pre-sentencing analysis of a defendant to assess their capabilities, used in several state court systems. Do a search with the terms in quotes and you'll find out more specifics.
1113125
Well, most individuals can't press charges, and if they are able, like in Mass for some things, then a judge issues an order for you too show up for a preliminary hearing.\n\nUsually police can get a warrant, but there has to be an affidavit supporting the warrant and a charge submitted to the court of jurisdiction in order to get one issued.!!\n\nMuch of this has a Constitutional basis!
103928
A person is entitled to "a fair and speedy" trial.  That means many people can be indicted the same day and others may have to wait longer due to the docket backlog at that particular court.  There is no 90-day rule.\n\nA person can be released on bail or held at the discretion of the court.