The statute prosecutes individuals who conspire to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in order to violate election laws. Pursuant to 18 USCS § 241, two or more persons are prohibited from conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory ...
Answer (1 of 24): In the United States it is neither illegal nor considered immoral by the vast majority to ask. In fact there are people whose job it is to ask voters how they cast their votes as they exit the polling places (exit poll). That's how the news outlets know what to tell you on elect...
No, asking someone how they voted is not illegal. It is also not illegal for the person who is asked to reply with “Go pound sand up your asshole with a jackhammer.”. As far as I know, it’s not illegal to ask in the U.S., but it’s not good form to do so either.
Nope, no way. Not if you sandwich it between "How much weight have you gained recently?" and "Do you think you're single because of your personality or your looks?" It's all in how you frame the question, you see! But truly, asking someone how they voted is — by and large — not considered polite conversation, and in some places it's not even legal.
After a jury has announced its verdict in a criminal trial, the defendant or prosecutor might be able to demand that the jurors confirm their votes in the courtroom, out loud and one by one.
Jurors may change their minds about the verdict once they’re asked to say what they really believe, away from the jury room and in front of the court . Sometimes, however, a juror’s response may seem confused, evasive, or ambiguous.
When they're depicted on television, prosecutors and other lawyers are often aggressive and seem to make statements to, rather than ask questions of, witnesses. Is this how it goes in a real courtroom?
On direct examination, lawyers generally can't ask leading questions. A question is leading if it suggests the answer. For example, "You couldn't see very well, could you?" or, "Did you get to the scene at 8 p.m.?"
Federal Voting Rights Laws. Federal laws passed over the years help protect Americans’ right to vote and make it easier for citizens to exercise that right: The Civil Rights Acts created some of the earliest federal protections against discrimination in voting. These protections were first outlined by the Civil Rights Act ...
According to the U.S. Constitution, voting is a right and a privilege. Many constitutional amendments have been ratified since the first election. However, none of them made voting mandatory for U.S. citizens.
Federal Campaign Finance Laws. Federal law puts limits on campaign contributions to candidates for president and Congress. It requires the candidates to report all the money their campaigns receive and spend. Open All +.
The 19th Amendment , ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote. The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes. The tax had been used in some states to keep African Americans from voting in federal elections. The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited voter discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. It also required certain places to provide election materials in languages besides English. The act also placed limits on certain states with a history of voter discrimination.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 allowed members of the U.S. armed forces and overseas U.S. voters to register and vote by mail. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 created new ways to register to vote.
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 authorized federal funds for elections. It also created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The EAC helps states comply with HAVA to adopt minimum standards on voter education, registration, and ballots.
While lawyers can certainly take your money and your time and we can file a case that will be very hard to win, if you don't care enough about your life to get a contract, the judge is not very likely to be on your side. At least, not automatically. Oral contracts are extremely hard to prove. What are the terms.
Tell the Truth. If your lawyer doubts you in the consultation, or doesn't think you have a case, while that may change over time, getting over an initial disbelief is very hard. You have to prove your case. Your attorney is not your witness. They are your advocate - but you are responsible for coming up with proof.
If you don't pay your lawyer on the day of trial, or however you have agreed to, then while he or she may be obligated by other ethical duties to do his/her best, they won't be motivated by sympathy for you, and it will show in court.
Well, truth be told, neither do I. The difference between lawyer and client is that the lawyer expects it to take a long time and understands. The client typically thinks it's unjustified. So, your hard truth is that each case takes time. Be patient.
While juries usually get it right, sometimes, it's not about whether a particular matter is emotional or simple, complicated or straightforward. Sometimes people make decisions on who has the nicer suit, or who is more pleasant to deal with. So even if your case is good or even if it's not so strong.
It's not appropriate to correspond directly with the judge without providing the other side the communication as well. A letter is also not the appropriate method to have the judge consider information in your case. There isn't much information in your inquiry.
If you don't have one, you should get one. The judge cannot consider a letter from you. That is an ex parte communication and he cannot look at it. The only thing the judge can look at are the pleadings in the file.
You should be explaining your side by filing a Request for Orders and Supporting Declaration of all relevant facts which support your request. Your other opportunity to share your side of the story is by your own testimony and that of your witnesses while at the court hearing. Keep in mind, that the information must be relevant to the issues ...