Lomas de Chapultepec Criminal Lawyer, Mexico


Abigail Lowe Deering

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  19 Years

Adrian Magallanes

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  12 Years

Alfredo Gutierrez Ortiz Mena

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  22 Years

Alina A C E Aldape

General Practice
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  47 Years

Amanda Denise Gonzalez Armendariz

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  14 Years

Ana Maria Salazar

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  34 Years

Antonio Garza

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  28 Years

Antonio Garza

General Practice
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  38 Years

Armando Javier Martinez Benitez

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  25 Years

Belen Molins

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  12 Years

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-620-0900

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.


Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-943-8690

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Lawyer.com can help you easily and quickly find Lomas de Chapultepec Criminal Lawyers and Lomas de Chapultepec Criminal Law Firms. Refine your search by specific Criminal

LEGAL TERMS

BAILIFF

A court official usually classified as a peace officer (sometimes as a deputy sheriff, or marshal) and usually wearing a uniform. A bailiff's main job is to mai... (more...)
A court official usually classified as a peace officer (sometimes as a deputy sheriff, or marshal) and usually wearing a uniform. A bailiff's main job is to maintain order in the courtroom. In addition, bailiffs often help court proceedings go smoothly by shepherding witnesses in and out of the courtroom and handing evidence to witnesses as they testify. In criminal cases, the bailiff may have temporary charge of any defendant who is in custody during court proceedings.

PLEA

The defendant's formal answer to criminal charges. Typically defendants enter one of the following pleas: guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea is usual... (more...)
The defendant's formal answer to criminal charges. Typically defendants enter one of the following pleas: guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea is usually entered when charges are formally brought (at arraignment).

ELEMENTS (OF A CRIME)

The component parts of crimes. For example, 'Robbery' is defined as the taking and carrying away of property of another by force or fear with the intent to perm... (more...)
The component parts of crimes. For example, 'Robbery' is defined as the taking and carrying away of property of another by force or fear with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Each of those four parts is an element that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

A rule of evidence that disallows the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. For example, the exclusionary rule would prevent a prosecutor from ... (more...)
A rule of evidence that disallows the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials. For example, the exclusionary rule would prevent a prosecutor from introducing at trial evidence seized during an illegal search.

SPECIFIC INTENT

An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of ... (more...)
An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of larceny is the taking of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property. A person is not guilty of larceny just because he took someone else's property; it must be proven that he took it with the purpose of keeping it permanently.

HABEAS CORPUS

Latin for 'You have the body.' A prisoner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in order to challenge the authority of the prison or jail warden to continu... (more...)
Latin for 'You have the body.' A prisoner files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in order to challenge the authority of the prison or jail warden to continue to hold him. If the judge orders a hearing after reading the writ, the prisoner gets to argue that his confinement is illegal. These writs are frequently filed by convicted prisoners who challenge their conviction on the grounds that the trial attorney failed to prepare the defense and was incompetent. Prisoners sentenced to death also file habeas petitions challenging the constitutionality of the state death penalty law. Habeas writs are different from and do not replace appeals, which are arguments for reversal of a conviction based on claims that the judge conducted the trial improperly. Often, convicted prisoners file both.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communicatio... (more...)
The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decisionmaking processes of the executive branch. As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation.

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main r... (more...)
Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main reason why evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of a deciding a case --for example, hearsay evidence, or an expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. Evidence will also be declared inadmissible if it suffers from some other defect--for example, as compared to its value, it will take too long to present or risks enflaming the jury, as might be the case with graphic pictures of a homicide victim. In addition, in criminal cases, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible. Because the rules of evidence are so complicated (and because contesting lawyers waste so much time arguing over them) there is a strong trend towards using mediation or arbitration to resolve civil disputes. In mediation and arbitration, virtually all evidence can be considered. See evidence, admissible evidence.

JURY NULLIFICATION

A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for ... (more...)
A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for juries in England and the United States, although judges will prevent a defense lawyer from urging the jury to acquit on this basis. Nullification was evident during the Vietnam war (when selective service protesters were acquitted by juries opposed to the war) and currently appears in criminal cases when the jury disagrees with the punishment--for example, in 'three strikes' cases when the jury realizes that conviction of a relatively minor offense will result in lifetime imprisonment.