Surprises include an amendment or replacement of pleadings.  Lack of time to prepare for a new complaint is a reason to continue.  If the amendment requires the submission of new evidence, an update may be granted.  In California, Martinez v. Superior Court In 1981, the Court used the “Reasonable Likelihood of Harm Standard” to grant a mandamus motion and order a change of location in a series of murders. The court highlighted the considerable publicity in the year leading up to the trial, the small size of the county where the trial was to take place, and the seriousness of the charges. The court found that the status of the victim and the defendant in the community is important, but not necessarily controlling, factors in the decision on an application for a change of location. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(a) provides for the transfer of proceedings to another district if the judge is satisfied that there is an adverse atmosphere. In order to meet the conditions for a transfer, the trial judge must determine that there is such a great prejudice to the prosecution or against the defendant that there is a reasonable probability that the defendant will not be able to receive a fair and impartial trial.
In the famous Sam Sheppard (Sheppard v. Maxwell) case in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if there is a reasonable likelihood that adverse pre-trial news would prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat subsides, or send it back to another district that is not so steeped in publicity. This doctrine has been proclaimed in other cases.   Continued existence may be granted if the defence lawyer is legally involved in another professional proceeding.   The usual approach is to require proof of actual bias. In the 1981 People v. case, Botham, the Colorado court, overturned the defendant`s conviction for murder in part because a change of location had been denied. The court highlighted the number of jurors who expressed an opinion that the accused was guilty, the number of jurors who were exposed to the public prior to trial, the jury`s knowledge of the details of the crime, and the information produced on the voir dire to determine that the accused was fulfilling the burden of proving a presumption of bias.  Early in the case, after the date of the resolution plan, the court issues a planning order that includes future hearing dates.
Due to advance notice of hearing dates, this schedule may reduce some scheduling conflicts. You should use it if you have received (received a copy of) a motion in a civil case filed in a Washington State Superior Court. Originally, we wrote these instructions for family law cases, but you can use the form in any type of civil case filed with the Supreme Court. There is reason to believe that courts generally do not grant a change of jurisdiction if there is a reasonable likelihood that the publication of the pre-litigation proceedings will be affected. Proof of actual prejudice is generally required, unless the State (Public Prosecutor`s Office) actually admits the prejudice.  The absence of a lawyer is a recognized ground for the continuation of the civil proceedings and is at the discretion of the court to grant or refuse to do so.   Continued existence may be granted in criminal proceedings where issues arise that could not reasonably have been foreseen. Continued payment should be granted if statements containing information that tends to create an alibi for the accused have been removed.  The indictment is the legal document containing the information about the accused`s indictment. If the prosecution makes significant changes to the facts contained in the indictment, the defence may be entitled to request a continuation in order to be able to prepare for the amended facts.
However, if the amendment is relatively minor and is not relevant to the merits of the case, it is unlikely that the prosecution will be justified. * If your case is not a family law case, you can use the shipping declaration below. A request for an extension may be made in writing or orally, depending on the circumstances. Often, at the beginning of the public session, requests for continued existence are made. In general, in a civil case, additional participation requested for lack of evidence is granted only if reasonable precautions have been taken to obtain it.  The question of diligence is a question of fact that is decided at the discretion of the Court.  A defendant who is considering hiring a lawyer at the beginning of his trial should appear at his indictment and ask the judge for an extension in order to find a lawyer. Sometimes a defendant may contact the court clerk prior to the indictment and request an informal continuation. That depends. It is easier to get an extension for a hearing on a motion than for a hearing. Try to speak to a lawyer before filing a motion to continue the process.
Most counties have their own rules on when and how to get a continuation of the trial. If you can`t talk to a lawyer, try the clerk, family rights broker or law librarian. A decision on a continuance generally depends on whether the party seeking continuance acted with due diligence in preparing its case. For example, if a defendant decides to hire a lawyer or change lawyers, they should do so immediately. The party seeking prosecution must have made reasonable efforts to move the case forward, although it does not need to have done everything possible to develop the case in order to obtain a continuation. The written request is normally accompanied by affidavits setting out the reasons for the request for an extension.  In order to justify the continuation of the civil proceedings on the basis of a lack of evidence, it is necessary to demonstrate that the missing evidence is relevant to the case.   A conviction may be quashed if, at the discretion of the court, the respondent did not have a reasonable period of time to prepare a defence, which contributed significantly to depriving the defendant of a fair trial.    Sometimes a defendant asks for a continuation when changing lawyers. They have the right to choose their own lawyer under the Sixth Amendment so that a judge can grant a continuance if the defendant can prove that a change of attorney is necessary. On the other hand, a defendant cannot obtain a continuation if he is delayed in obtaining a new lawyer, if he has another lawyer ready to represent him, or if the new lawyer would not be sufficiently prepared to present his case with the follow-up as well.