Multiplicitous Legal Definition
FindLaw.com free and reliable legal information for consumers and legal professionals LawInfo.com National Bar Directory and Consumer Legal Resources At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the leading source of free legal information and resources on the Internet. Contact us. Abogado.com The Spanish Consumer Legal Website #1 Are you a lawyer? Visit our professional website » The FindLaw Legal Dictionary – free access to more than 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries. “Multiplier”. Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/multiplicitous. Retrieved October 11, 2022. n. several actual or potential lawsuits that should be combined into a single lawsuit and prosecution. One of the fundamental principles of the law is that diversity should be avoided as much as possible, achievable and equitable. Example: Several lawsuits are filed by different people against the same person or organization, based on the same facts and legal issues.
At the request of one of the parties or by decision of the judge, the judge may order the consolidation of cases. Source: Merriam-Webster`s Dictionary of Law ©, 1996. Licensed with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. The rule, in the absence of a judicial finding to the contrary, appears to be that if a bank official or employee is induced to embezzle, abuse or withdraw bank funds or money, that impulse, even if it results in a series of transactions, constitutes a separate violation and should be the subject of a separate indictment. Each successive impulse, however common it may be to the previous ones, must be counted individually. The duplicity of advocacy lies in the multitude of different topics on the same issue, with several answers required. Duplicity can occur in the same pleading. The dual argument is to raise two or more different defences for a single object or purpose, even though one of them would have the same legal effect as both or all.
The disadvantages resulting from this rigour have been corrected by laws and rules stating, for example, that “it is lawful for any defendant in a claim or action before a court with the permission of the court to invoke as many different issues as he deems necessary for his defense”. Such provisions are in force in most States. ISSUE: In situations where the alleged criminal conduct involves a range of activities, should the indictment state one count for all acts or one count for each act? The duplicity of advocacy consists of the multitude of different topics on a single question, where several answers are required.2 min spent reading SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. Lawyers with the exclusive Super Lawyers note This applies only to the pleas of the statement and does not include subsequent replies, rejoinders or pleadings. In cases referred to in Article 1001 where several false statements are contained in a single document, the instructions of the jury must be followed. In such cases, the instructions must clearly state that the jury`s decision must be made unanimously as to the false statement(s). See United States v. Boutte, 13 F.3d 855 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 115 p.Ct. 71 (1994); United States v. Holley, 942 F.2d 916, 925-29 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 114 p.Ct. 77 (1993) (such a charge exists in perjury cases in which multiple false statements are charged with a single count). This is the right enforcement unit. The commonly used criteria are: (1) identical evidence and (2) legislative intent. The first criterion is simply whether each crime requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. See United States v. Blockburger, 284 U.S.
299 (1931); United States v. Albrecht, 273 U.S. 1 (1927). The test is intended to avoid confusion as to the basis of the verdict of exposing the accused to dual criminality. The second criterion is the intention of Parliament. This test often involves determining whether Congress intended to prohibit every act or behavior consisting of a series of actions. United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218 (1952); Ebeling c.
