Lisa Loeb Voice Commercial Bounty

E 'intent to murder any who causes a fatal accident by moving the red

Supreme Court, ruling n.10411/2011
The Supreme Court has recognized, for the first time that the head of a fatal accident, ran a red light, is due to "murder with intent to defraud any" .
The driver of a stolen van, fleeing the police had crossed an intersection at full speed with red lights and was run over a car with three guys on board, one of whom died. Man sentenced by the Assize Court of Appeal in Rome six years and six months in prison because the crime had been declassified from murder to manslaughter aggravated by forecasting the event.
The case ended in the Supreme Court that upheld the action of the prosecutor, has ordered a retrial. The Supreme Court explained in the preamble that "the Court on the merits, in addition to reading the findings in a biased trial, assessed by analyzing the position of the accused and only some of the evidence and not 'worried calarli within the whole context that would undoubtedly help to clarify their true scope. "
In essence, the Court said "the appellate court would have to consider how 'and the duration of the chase, the time elapsed between the start of himself and his transformation into a mere remote control of the stolen van; the overall mode 'escape and its continued existence even after the police had adopted a different kind of vigilance. "will also need to consider" the characteristics of the junctions involved with red light before reaching the "where the accident occurred" and the possibilities' of sight of other vehicles.

Activemoviewindow Power Dvd

are lawful, during the process, the offensive expressions between lawyers

Supreme , Case n.10188/2011
fall within the terms of the dialectic of the case 'sharp' between advocates and opponents do not constitute a crime. The decision of the Supreme Court that "not every expression that creates disappointment is for that reason alone , abusive or offensive expression is automatically a strong or pungent. "
For this reason, and even more so, when we discuss in of a process is common for parties "to discredit the opposing view, use phrases and words in a different context, could scarcely be tolerated."
All this according to our laws must be regarded as physiological place that was "in the presence of a radical and open contention between parties with conflicting interests and who express opposing view."
Define "ridiculous" the argument of his opponent, the Court explained, "is certainly a way of expressing unpleasant, and perhaps ethically reprehensible, but not for this integral the details of the rights under Articles. 594 or 595 cp ".

Plans For A Floating Arm Trebuchet

Defamation via web: the IP address is compelling evidence

Supreme Court, Judgement n.8824/2011
who connects to the Internet via your home PC and take part in a political forum on the web railing and defaming a person and his family has defamation and the numerical code IP is bound by the operator of the phone line they have overwhelming evidence, plus the nickname used . The Supreme Court has established criminal liability for defamation against a person working on a web forum identified by the IP number of your computer. In the opinion
the technical assessment has highlighted that:
a) the identification number on the global Internet is assigned exclusively to a specific computer connected;
b) another person network, to achieve the interference change - as advanced by the defense argument - that is, from IP to connect to third stealing the identity, needs to know details of when and how detailed the connection in which intrude;
c) you are wrong should have made a complex and difficult series of actions designed to eliminate traces of the irregular invasive procedure.
can not realistically achieve all these circumstances. The man therefore, confirms the Supreme Court, be liable for defamation without that there is room for other scapegoats. not even work the extenuating circumstance of the right of criticism policy since the offensive expressions consist not in a reasoned dissent, expressed as a measured and necessary, but in a personal attack on anti-intellectual and moral dignity of the adversary and be heard. The Supreme Court reiterates that it is not necessary intention to injure another's reputation, but rather the willingness to use words depleting agent of the legal, with the knowledge to offend the dignity of the recipient of expressions.
(LaStampa)

Should I Use Powder Before Waxing

not be used to condemn the statements pre-trial of the witness which had become unavailable then

Cassation, Judgement n.9665/2011
The Supreme Court has ruled that statements made during the pre-trial by a witness who makes suddenly disappeared can not be used for the purposes of sentencing. For this reason, the Court annulled by court, the Court of Appeal which had been condemned six small dealers, cd. "Pusher" on the basis of statements of a witness who was then absconds. Taking the view that the grounds for appeal, brought by the defendants, stated that "the unexpected and unforeseeable unavailability of those whose statements have already been acquired in the normal course of pre-trial and which can not be said to be proof of intention to evade the examination hearing "is included in the cases of confirmed objective impossibility, which, pursuant to Art. 111, fifth paragraph of the Constitution, excluded to the rule of evidence in contradiction of the parties, with the result that, in this case, does not recognize the proposed breach of Article. 6, third paragraph, Lett. d) ECHR (as interpreted by the rulings of the Strasbourg Court), because, as is clear from the judgments of the Constitutional Court No 348 and 349 of 2007, the provisions of that Convention, although direct binding, the interpretation given to it by the Strasbourg Court, the national court, however, can not result in the non-application of internal rules, contrasting with them hypothetically, if and as these latter are implementing the principles stated in the Constitution, which even the conventional rules to be considered subordinate condition met the applicability of Article. 111, fifth paragraph of the Constitution (Cass. pen. Sect. 5, 16269/2010 Rv. 247 258). "The Court added that in terms of reading the hearing, under Article. 512 cpp" the impossibility of repetition of the act, in case of unavailability of witnesses, and used only if such a situation, not only is "unpredictable" (...) but even "objective" in the sense that there is no evidence to infer that the subject has voluntarily removed from consideration. In the latter event does not constitute the assumption of impossibility of evidence heard in the art to which it relates. 111, paragraph 5 of the Constitution. "It has been found as in this case "the desire to avoid examination was reasonably inferred from the behavior of the witness (...) which is regularly cited for three consecutive times to appear at the hearing, did not appear by then lost his trail ( Cass. pen. sect. 6, 8384/2003 Rv. 223 731).