Bifurcated Proceedings - Revision history

Durankar at 14:43, 16 February 2011

2011-02-16T14:43:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 16 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, death penalty cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"		In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, death penalty cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender."

	In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.		In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.

	----See [[Sentencing]]		----See [[Sentencing]]

Ibjadmin at 21:36, 20 January 2011

2011-01-20T21:36:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 20 January 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, death penalty cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"		In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, death penalty cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"
	In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.----See [[Sentencing]]
			In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.

			----See [[Sentencing]]

Ibjadmin at 21:36, 20 January 2011

2011-01-20T21:36:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 20 January 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, ~~[[Death Penalty \|~~ death penalty]] cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"		In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, death penalty cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"
	In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.----See [[Sentencing]]		In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.----See [[Sentencing]]

Ibjadmin at 21:35, 20 January 2011

2011-01-20T21:35:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 20 January 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, [[Death Penalty \| death penalty]] cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"		In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, [[Death Penalty \| death penalty]] cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes\| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"
	In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.		In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity\|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.----See [[Sentencing]]
	See [[Sentencing]]

Ibjadmin: Created page with "In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings..."

2011-01-20T21:34:51Z

Created page with "In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings..."

New page

In some criminal courts, courts may separate the trial into two separate parts which have separate factfinding missions. These are sometimes referred to as bifurcated proceedings. For instance, in the United States, [[Death Penalty | death penalty]] cases are typically bifurcated proceedings. In the first proceeding, the factfinder determines whether the defendant is guilty of the crime while in the second proceeding, the factfinder determines whether to recommend capital punishment. Cases involving [[Habitual Offender Statutes| habitual offender statutes]] also sometimes have bifurcated proceedings in which the factfinder first determines guilt and later determines whether the defendant is a "habitual offender"
In some jurisdictions the defense of [[Mental Incapacity|mental disease or defect]] will trigger bifurcated proceedings.
See [[Sentencing]]