Procedural defense: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Remove blatantly speculative POV ("Such defenses tend to be unpopular with the public...") |
m Stub-sorting. You can help! |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | |||
In [[jurisprudence]], '''procedural defenses''' are a form of [[defense (legal)|defense]], via which a [[party (law)|party]] argues that they should not be held [[liability|liable]] for for a legal charge or claim brought against them. The term has applications in both [[criminal law]] and [[civil law]] in [[common law]] jurisdictions. |
In [[jurisprudence]], '''procedural defenses''' are a form of [[defense (legal)|defense]], via which a [[party (law)|party]] argues that they should not be held [[liability|liable]] for for a legal charge or claim brought against them. The term has applications in both [[criminal law]] and [[civil law]] in [[common law]] jurisdictions. |
||
{{CrimPro}} |
{{CrimPro}} |
||
Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
* [[legal technicality]] |
* [[legal technicality]] |
||
[[Category:Criminal defenses]] |
[[Category:Criminal defenses]] |
||
⚫ |
Revision as of 18:23, 22 May 2006
In jurisprudence, procedural defenses are a form of defense, via which a party argues that they should not be held liable for for a legal charge or claim brought against them. The term has applications in both criminal law and civil law in common law jurisdictions.
In the United States, procedural defenses include:
- collateral estoppel
- denial of a speedy trial
- double jeopardy
- entrapment
- prosecutorial misconduct
- selective prosecution.