Talk:Criminal procedure

message: I'd just like to know if they still do that.And why explain to me also why also they don't do it anymore (and i guess is 'cause is has to do with the Separation of church and state type of thing.)So thanks and do explain it in time please.
*They still do, and it's still sworn upon (although a witness may choose which Bible or other holy book to swear on according to their faith). bd2412 T 04:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do they still have the bible in Courtrooms?

message: Just wondering. I am doing a debate in english class and it is based on a book called martyn pig. The character kills his father and hides the body. I've tried searching sevral sites but can't find the answer. Can you help?
:You can start your research by looking up "obstruction of justice" and "evidence tampering", in the future, you may want to post such questions on a place like google or yahoo groups. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you hide the body... what law is that breaking? 

message: Shouldn't we mention these somewhere in this article or the template? They form a huge part of American criminal procedure!  --Coolcaesar 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic stop and Terry 

message: Right near the end of the article as is stands as of 20061210 is this line: 
"Increasingly, there is also a recognition that collateral consequences of criminal charges may result from the sentence that are not explicitly part of the sentence itself."
Could someone clarify what that means, and what it should mean to the reader? Is this talking about things like a parent's sentence hurting the children whose parent will then be in jail? It seems like the thought got cut off somewhere -- I find it awfully ambiguous, but it may be important, and I am just not informed enough to understand. Illumination, anyone? 
timbo 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you linked to elaborates on the concept a little bit more. The example you give seems consistent with the overall concept. I vaguely remember thinking similarly the first time I saw it in the article. Perhaps you found the wording a bit unclear, was there something else? dr.ef.tymac 17:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds to me like maybe it refers to someone who is arrested and charged for multiple crimes, but only convicted for one.  Then, the sentencing for that charge is made more severe taking into consideration the other charges which are believed to be true but not worthy of conviction?  I don't really know...71.61.64.113 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit of rephrasing for clarity?

message: in the above cited paragraph, would it not be advisable to list examples (of countries)?Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil v. common law

message: examples are given using 2 different abbreviations for versus. i beleieve that v. is commonly used in legal writing. let's get consistent. the court will now hear arguments for vs.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: V. v. vs.

message: Procedure and process are two different concepts, but they seems to be treated as the same here.--Malore (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate procedure and process