At this point Alexis [sic] which Affiant knows to be a Google Smart Radio, heard "call Sheriff's".
|
|
"It appears to affiant that the subject is not serious about her sobriety of the orders of the court," according to the documents.
|
|
"To establish probable cause, the affiant must demonstrate a basis for knowledge and belief that the facts are true," the FBI operating manual states.
|
|
From there, a document production team finishes preparing the file, then hands it over to an "affiant" — typically a low-level employee with no legal training — for a review and signature.
|
|
"We find it reckless for an officer-affiant to search a suspect's home and his father's barn based on nothing more than a hunch that a crime has been committed," the court wrote.
|
|
" Nye described a litany of false affidavits entered into courts by Florida foreclosure law firms, where they claimed control of documents the trusts never received, claimed ownership over notes when the entity merely serviced them, or claimed "to support knowledge of facts not known by the affiant.
|
|
If information and belief, the affiant must state the source of his information and the reason for his belief that it is true. Attorney are reluctant for the defendant be the affiant. Although statements from the defendant in support of a motion to suppress cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt, the statements can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony. # The motion must be served on the state.
|
|
In the United States, such an oath has often indicated that the affiant has not been a member of a particular organization or organizations mentioned in the oath.
|
|
When a person signs an affidavit, that person is eligible to take the stand at a trial or evidentiary hearing. One party may wish to summon the affiant to verify the contents of the affidavit, while the other party may want to cross-examine the affiant about the affidavit. Some types of motions will not be accepted by the court unless accompanied by an independent sworn statement or other evidence in support of the need for the motion. In such a case, a court will accept an affidavit from the filing attorney in support of the motion, as certain assumptions are made, to wit: The affidavit in place of sworn testimony promotes judicial economy.
|
|
If the affiant is a party in the case, the affiant's opponent may be successful in having the affidavit admitted as evidence, as statements by a party-opponent are admissible through an exception to the hearsay rule. Affidavits are typically included in the response to interrogatories.Rule 33. Interrogatories to Parties.
|
|
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was credible or his information reliable.” Along with Spinelli v. United States (1969), Aguilar established the Aguilar–Spinelli test, a judicial guideline for evaluating the validity of a search warrant based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip.
|
|
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
|
|
He may admit the fugitive to bail pending the hearing. The district attorney shall appear at the hearing. If, after hearing, the magistrate is satisfied from the evidence that the person is a fugitive he may issue an order authorizing affiant to return the fugitive to the jurisdiction from which he escaped bail. A bondsman or other person who is bail for a fugitive admitted to bail in another state who takes the fugitive into custody, except pursuant to an order issued under this section, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
|
|
The SBVT statements were accompanied by affidavits. One affiant, Alfred French, acknowledged he had no firsthand knowledge of the events to which he had sworn. In May 2006, The New York Times reported that an early member of the group, Steve Hayes, stated that he came to believe that the group was twisting Kerry's record, and broke with the group and voted for Kerry. Hayes told the Times: Hayes also told The New York Times that he provided a long interview to Kerry's supporters, backing their version of the incident for which Kerry received the Bronze Star.
|
|
A declarant, generally speaking, is anyone who composes and signs a statement or declaration alleging that the information he has given therein is true. This differs from an affiant, as in the case of an affidavit the facts therein are sworn to before a notary public or other official, whereas a declaration is usually made by one person for the use of another. Uttering a statement or declaration which is proven to be false is a crime in many jurisdictions, though usually a separate offence from perjury. The word declarant, when discussing the hearsay rule and its exceptions, refers to the person who makes an out-of-court statement.
|
|
In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual (especially if the affiant is not available for cross-examination) with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear, may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence. An affidavit which reflected a better grasp of the facts close in time to the actual events may be used to refresh a witness's recollection. Materials used to refresh recollection are admissible as evidence.
|
|
On November 10, when an American militiaman from the fort was killed nearby by unknown Indians, angry soldiers brutally executed Cornstalk, his son Elinipsico, and two other Shawnees. Private Jacob McNeil, one of the soldiers who participated in the capture of the Chief Cornstalk, attempted to prevent his murder. McNeil testified: "That he was one of the guards over the celebrated Indian chief Corn Stalk – that when he was murdered he this affiant did all he could to prevent it – but that it was all in vain the American (soldier)'s exasperated at the depredations of the Indians."Pension Application of Jacob McNeil American political and military leaders were alarmed by the murder of Cornstalk; they believed he was their only hope of securing Shawnee neutrality.
|
|
In many jurisdictions, quitclaim deeds are rarely used to transfer property from seller to buyer in a traditional property sale: the grantor and grantee have an existing relationship, or the grantor and grantee are the same person. But in others, such as Massachusetts, quitclaim deeds are the norm. Execution of a quitclaim deed is relatively simple, and requires little more than both parties signing the deed and, if required in the state where it is executed, having the deed notarized, acknowledged before a notary or with a jurat signed before a notary. A jurat, also known as a verification upon oath or affirmation, is a form of notarization in which the affiant appears before a notary, swears to the truth of the contents of the document, and signs the document in front of the notary.
|
|