Is the status of a suspect declared invalid by a pretrial Judge possible to be named a suspect again? It should be understood that the pretrial examination on the validity of the suspect only assesses the formal (administrative) aspect, for example in relation to the two pieces of evidence, the date, the name in the commencement order of the investigation and other formal aspects so as not to enter the principal matter. So if any person whose suspect status is declared invalid by a pretrial judge then the law enforcement apparatus concerned may determine the status of the suspect again to that person. The Pretrial Ruling granting the request for the unauthorized determination of the suspect does not invalidate the Investigator’s authority to determine the person concerned as a suspect again after fulfilling at least two valid new legal instruments, unlike the previous evidence relating to the matter of the case. The pretrial examination of the validity of the suspect determines only the formal (administrative) aspect, has not yet entered the principal issue of the case, so if the status of a suspect is declared invalid by a pretrial judge, then the legal apparatus concerned may determine the status of the suspect again to that person. When you become a suspect, then you have a desire to be free from legal bondage. If you ask how to do it then you must use the decision wisely, one of them is to use the guarantee and the services that handle it is bail bonds fort Lauderdale.
In judicial practice, there is often a difference of opinion between the judges in deciding on a case that is examined and trial. This difference of opinion is natural because judges have a family background, education, age, social environment, universities and different role models of educators so that it can create value differences among judges. Such discrepancies are found in the verdict he has imposed on a case, as follows Unanimous, namely a court ruling that was decided on the basis of the unanimous vote of the judges who tried the case. Concurring Opinion, if the opinion of a Judge follows the opinion of the majority of Judges on the verdict, such as agreeing that the criminal is sentenced to 8 years, but he only states differ in legal reasoning.