![]() |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Welcome to the LegalMatch Free Legal Advice Forums forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. |
| Find a Lawyer Now By Category: | |||||||
![]() |
Family & Divorce | ![]() |
Criminal Defense | ![]() |
Job & Employment | ![]() |
Personal Injury |
![]() |
Real Estate Lawyers | ![]() |
Immigration | ![]() |
Business Lawyers | ![]() |
Other Lawyers |
|
Be assured that
LegalMatch is Fast, Free and Confidential |
|||||||
| Not Ready To Hire an Expert Lawyer? | ![]() |
Get Online Legal Documents | |||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Huh? Where did you get this information? What does this mean? "A civil proceeding where it is an evidentiary hearing is usually the one after a hearing to give temporary court orders that will be made more permanent or denied in the evidentiary hearing." You state that an evidentiary hearing is AFTER a hearing to deny or extend temporary court orders IN the evidentiary hearing? This is blarney and makes NO sense. Evidentiary hearing is just what the word sounds like--EVIDENCE. It is , basically, a HEARING to determine IF there is probable cause to continue in a criminal case and bring charges against a defendant, or if there is enough evidence to support a claim of right in a civil case. Within some criminal justice systems, a preliminary hearing (evidentiary hearing), often abbreviated verbally as a "prelim") is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether, and to what extent, criminal charges and civil cause of actions will be heard (by a court), what evidence will be admitted, and what else must be done (before a case can proceed). At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by counsel, indeed in many jurisdictions there is a right to counsel at the preliminary hearing. In the U.S.A., since it represents the initiation of "adversarial judicial proceedings", the indigent suspect's right to appointed counsel attaches at this point. See Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220, beginning at "The State candidly concedes that ..." (1977). [1] Contrast this with some jurisdictions in the United States, where a person may be charged, instead, by seeking a "true bill of indictment" before a grand jury; where counsel is not normally permitted. The conduct of the preliminary hearing as well as the specific rules regarding the admissibility of evidence vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Should the court decide that there is probable cause, a formal charging instrument (called the Information) will issue; and the prosecution will continue. If the court should find that there is no probable cause, then typically the prosecution will cease. However, many jurisdictions allow the prosecution to seek a new preliminary hearing, or even seek a bill of indictment from a grand jury. Some important questions, generally addressed in such a hearing, are:
After a defendant is held to answer, the judge will set a date for arraignment. A new pleading is filed with the court (sometimes called an "information") and the defendant can enter a plea at his or her arraignment date. Amazing what you can find on the Internet regarding almost any SUBJECT. Last edited by GentleGrace : 08-08-2008 at 09:57 PM. |
|
|||
|
I am sorry, but I still do not have a clue as to what you are saying.
In a civil hearing, when can people use witnesses--or better yet, when can they not? You are implying there are certain times witnesses are called and certain times they are not. When are they, and when aren't they (since you made this assertion)? According to what you are saying, they have two choices--call witnesses, or argue law ( you don't argue jurisdiction per se )----the issue of does this court have jurisdiction is decided from the get go--if the court doesn't have jurisdiction, it is usually noted BEFORE the lawsuit is ever filed. It is a perfunctory consideration. I have argued civil cases and never cited past precedence. I have also argued civil law and never called a witness. I am afraid your information is flawed. LegalEagle--want to weigh in on this? Perhaps you can translate for me ---I haven't a clue what " it is just that it is common in civil hearings for Preliminary Injunctions eg to see law teachers make the point that they are evidentiary hearings" means. Last edited by GentleGrace : 08-08-2008 at 09:13 PM. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Attorney Advertising |
Law Firm Financing
LegalMatch Reviews |
LegalMatch Forums |
LegalMatch Family Lawyers |
LegalMatch PR
LegalMatch in Austin |
LegalMatch Life |
LegalMatch Affiliate Program