Probable Jurisdiction Legal Definition
Replevin – A lawsuit to recover illegally confiscated property. Kangaroo court – a term that describes a mock procedure in which a person`s rights are completely ignored and in which the outcome is won in advance due to the bias of the court or another tribunal. Contract – An agreement between two or more people that creates an obligation to do or not do a particular thing. A contract must have promised or given something of value, and a reasonable agreement between the parties on what the contract means. The parties must be legally able to conclude binding agreements. Comment. JM 9-27.440 concerns plea agreements with “Alford” pleas – admissions of guilt by defendants who nevertheless maintain their innocence. In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 USA 25 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit a court from accepting a guilty plea from an accused who simultaneously maintains his innocence, as long as the plea is made willfully and intelligently and there is a solid factual basis.
The Court held that there is no substantial difference between a plea by candidate nolo, in which the accused does not expressly admit guilt, and an admission of guilt by a defendant pleading guilty. Despite the constitutional validity of Alford`s pleas, such pleas should be avoided except in the most unusual circumstances, even if it is not an agreement and the action would cover all pending charges. As one court put it, “the public could not understand or accept the fact that an accused who denied guilt could nevertheless plead guilty and go to jail.” See United States v. Bednarski, 445 F.2d 364, 366 (1st Cir. 1971). As a result, it is often preferable for a jury to settle the factual and legal dispute between the government and the defendant, rather than encouraging government lawyers to plead guilty in circumstances that the public might consider questionable or unfair. For this reason, prosecutors should not enter into Alford-Plea deals without the approval of the U.S. Attorney and Deputy Attorney General. However, in addition to refusing to enter into an agreement, the extent to which the Department can express its rejection of Alford`s pleas may be limited.
Although a court may accept a plea presented by the nolo contendere after considering “the views of the parties and the public interest in the effective administration of justice” (Fed. R. Crim. In Rule 11(a)(3), at least one court has found that a refusal to admit guilt “merely because the accused does not admit the alleged facts of the crime constitutes an abuse of authority”. United States v. Gaskins, 485 F.2d 1046, 1048 (D.C. Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Bednarski, op.
cit. United States v. Boscoe, 518 F.2d 95 (1st cir. 1975). Nevertheless, prosecutors can and should discourage Alford`s pleas by refusing to accept the dismissal of charges when an Alford plea is offered on less than all pending charges. As with guilty pleas in general, if such a plea is filed for less than all charges and accepted by the government`s appeal, the government attorney should go to court on all remaining charges that are not excluded on grounds of dual jeopardy, unless the U.S. attorney or in cases handled by the department`s prosecutors. The appropriate Deputy Attorney General authorizes the charges to be dropped. Prosecutors should also take full advantage of the opportunity offered by Article 11(b)(3) in an Alford case to thwart the accused`s efforts to convey a public image of innocence. Rule 11(b)(3) requires the court to be satisfied that there is a “factual basis” for an admission of guilt. However, the rule does not require that the factual basis of the plea be provided solely by the defendant. See United States v.
Navedo, 516 F.2d 29 (2d cir. 1975); Irizarry v. United States, 508 F.2d 960 (2d cir. 1974); United States v. Davis, 516 F.2d 574 (7th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, in Alford, government counsel should strive to provide the strongest possible factual basis for the plea in order not only to comply with the requirement of rule 11(b)(3), but also to minimize the negative impact of Alford`s pleadings on the public perception of the administration of justice. On the other hand, a decision on a plea of direct lack of jurisdiction based on a request for dismissal under a law of particular jurisdiction may be regarded as ruling on the merits of a case. Therefore, it may take a clear majority between eight judges – five – to resolve the issue in favour of jurisdiction. If so, a 4-4 vote could mean that the Court has not asserted jurisdiction and therefore does not exist. Again, there does not seem to be any precedent.
Surveillance Review Writ – An order made to prevent a serious miscarriage of justice by correcting an erroneous decision of a lower court acting within its jurisdiction but making errors of law or acting in wilful disregard of the law.