In S v Van Vuuren (1961), an important case in South Africancriminal procedure, Van Vuuren was convicted of murder and attempted murder in a shooting incident, and had claimed that he had been drinking heavily when he had been provoked, and had no knowledge of what he was doing when he fired the weapon. He was eventually convicted on both counts.
The court held that the summary of substantial facts of the case which shall accompany the indictment is not an integral part of the indictment. It is a statement of material facts to inform the accused of the allegations against him and the State is not required to set out exactly what evidence will be led to prove these allegations.
Furthermore, the Attorney-General has a discretion regarding how much information shall be disclosed in such a summary.
Moreover, the provisions of s144(3)(a)(i) make it plain that the Attorney-General is not bound by the contents thereof and may lead evidence at the trial of facts which are not in the summary.
Related Research Articles
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. A variation in civil law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.
Not proven is a verdict available to a court of law in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts, one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal.
Nolle prosequi, abbreviated nol or nolle pros, is legal Latin meaning "to be unwilling to pursue". In Commonwealth and US common law, it is used for prosecutors' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a criminal case before trial or before a verdict is rendered; it is a kind of motion to dismiss and contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.
A miscarriage of justice occurs when a grossly unfair outcome is made in a criminal or civil proceeding, which may include a deportation proceeding under the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For example, it happens when a national of the United States (American) is forcefully deported as an alien, or a person is convicted of a misconduct or a crime that he/she did not commit. There is no statute of limitations for purposes of investigating and correcting a miscarriage of justice.
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment's protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.
Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.
Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which confirmed that a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction was not subject to the Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury to determine the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Crystal Gail Mangum is a former exotic dancer and convicted murderer from Durham, North Carolina, who is best known for having made false allegations of rape against lacrosse players in the 2006 Duke lacrosse case. The fact that Mangum was a black woman working in the sex industry, while the accused were all white men, created extensive media interest and academic debate about race, class, gender and the politicization of the justice system.
No case for the defendant to answer is a term in the criminal law of some Commonwealth states, whereby a defendant seeks acquittal without having to present a defence, because of the insufficiency of the prosecution's case. The motion is infrequently used in civil cases where the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's case is insufficient to prove liability.
The Peggy Hettrick murder case concerns the unsolved 1987 death of Peggy Hettrick in Fort Collins, Colorado. Timothy Lee "Tim" Masters enlisted in the United States Navy following a high school career plagued by police accusation of murder when he was a sophomore at Fort Collins High School. After eight years in the Navy, he was honorably discharged. Masters worked for Learjet as an aviation mechanic until 1997, when he was arrested for the murder of Peggy Hettrick. He was charged and convicted of the Hettrick murder in 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. His sentence was vacated in January 2008 when DNA evidence from the original crime scene indicated that he was not the responsible party. Three years after his release from prison, Masters was exonerated by the Colorado Attorney General on June 28, 2011. To date, no one else has been charged with Hettrick's murder.
Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328 (1885), was an application for a writ of habeas corpus to release the petitioner from imprisonment in the District of Columbia jail where he was held, as he alleges, unlawfully by John S. Crocker, the warden of the jail. He presents with the petition the record of his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of the District to imprisonment for five years under an indictment for embezzlement, and this record and the petition of the applicant present all that could be brought before the court on a return to the writ, if one were awarded.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
Rolando Cruz is an American man known for having been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, along with co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez, for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in DuPage County, Illinois. The police had no substantive physical evidence linking the two men to the crime. Their first trial was jointly in 1987, and their statements were used against each other and a third defendant.
Operation Family Secrets was an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into mob-related crimes in Chicago. The FBI called it one of the most successful investigations of organized crime that it had ever conducted.
Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.
Burton v. United States is the name of two appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States by Senator Joseph R. Burton (R-KS) following his conviction for compensated representation of a party in a proceeding in which the United States was interested: Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 (1905) and Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906). Burton was convicted of acting as counsel to Rialto Grain and Securities Company in the United States Postmaster General's investigation of Rialto for mail fraud.
United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. 484 (1862), is a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the Venue and Vicinage clauses of the United States Constitution. It was an "unusual criminal case" and one of the few constitutional criminal cases from the Taney Court. Jackalow, a mariner from the Ryukyu Islands, was suspected of the robbery and murder of the captain of the sloop Spray, Jonathan Leete, and Jonathan's brother Elijah, while the ship was at sea. He was convicted of robbery in the Long Island Sound, but as there was disagreement over the question of jurisdiction between the two judges who heard the post-trial motion, the case was referred to the Supreme Court by certificate of division.
The murder of Odin Lloyd occurred on June 17, 2013, in North Attleborough, Massachusetts, US. His death made international headlines when Aaron Hernandez, at the time a tight end for the New England Patriots of the National Football League, was investigated as a suspect in the case. Lloyd had been a linebacker for a New England Football League (NEFL) semi-professional football team, the Boston Bandits, since 2007.
The murder of Tair Rada, a 13-year-old Israeli schoolgirl, was committed in 2006, in the girls' bathroom of her school in Katzrin. Roman Zadorov , a Ukrainian and a resident of Israel, was convicted of the murder and was sentenced for life on september 14 of 2010. His prosecution and conviction have been a source of controversy, receiving a lot of media coverage, as well as being the focus of an Israeli documentary TV series called Shadow of Truth that has gained worldwide attention on Netflix. On August 26 2021, Zadorov was released from prison to house arrest after many appeals.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
