Any precedent for a foreign (non-U.S.) attorney, pro hac vice, was granted permission to represent civil litigants in any U.S. federal or state court? Question set forth above with particular interest in California. I looked for precedent of this, but this is probably rarely a matter of appeals, and are probably decided in pre-trials. I am aware of the main rule (9.40) which reads, as relevant: “ (a) Eligibility A person who is not a licensee of the State Bar of California but who is an attorney in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States [may so appear].” It does not provide for foreign attorney’s, but I would imagine judges discretionary power potentially set such precedent in the not so far past. The fact that foreign education is generally acceptable for taking the Bar Exam (calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education/Legal-Education/…) allows for the inference that, at least pro hac vice, courts may have allowed this on rare occasions.
For state courts, it depends on the state. Pro hac vice appearances like this are probably most common in New York, in relation to international commercial disputes. It is also common for foreign attorneys to take the New York bar exam - several thousand people do that each year - in which case they have a springboard to appear pro hac vice in other states. The NY exam is well-understood in this way, in terms of training and support that might be offered in the country of origin. But one-off appearances, particularly by in-house counsel, also take place routinely. Many states, including California, also have a category of &quot;foreign legal consultant&quot;, someone who is retained to advise on the law of the specific foreign jurisdiction in question, but who isn't allowed to appear in court. In the current version of the California Rules of Court, pro hac vice is covered in Rule 9.40. On its face, this rule only applies to attorneys who are &quot;eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States&quot;. There is a broad exception in 9.40(h), This rule does not preclude the Supreme Court or a Court of Appeal from permitting argument in a particular case from a person who is not a licensee of the State Bar, but who is licensed to practice in another jurisdiction and who possesses special expertise in the particular field affected by the proceeding. &quot;Another jurisdiction&quot; is not facially limited to U.S jurisdictions, so it may be that the higher state courts could admit a foreign attorney. I do not know of an example either way. In general, California's licensing requirements for lawyers have often been strictly interpreted. The State Bar Act (Business and Professions Code, 6000-6243) says that: No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active licensee of the State Bar. An attorney appearing pro hac vice is temporarily registered with the State Bar once their application has been approved by the court. This general licensing regime, which aims to protect the public against dishonest or incompetent practitioners, has been held (e.g. in Birbrower v. Superior Court 17 Cal. 4th 119 (1998)) to imply a strong public policy favoring the practice of law in California by licensed State Bar members. Occasional admission pro hac vice does not extend to doing regular legal work of other kinds, including giving legal advice, preparing documents, and so on - and certainly not to maintaining a permanent physical office in California, or advertising to the public. If you would like to do those things then the state would like you to take their own bar exam, in which case (if you pass!) you are in the same situation as any other California lawyer. There is a fairly recent exception for international commercial arbitration (not applicable to normal arbitration about things like disputes over personal property). The Code of Civil Procedure, 1297.185, now says that if you are a member of a recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction, the members of which are admitted or otherwise authorized to practice as attorneys or counselors at law or the equivalent, and meet various other conditions, then you can participate in arbitration work on a &quot;fly in, fly out&quot; (FIFO) basis. You don't need to register or pay a fee. (But, per 1297.187, you still need pro hac vice permission to appear as counsel in an actual court.) Additionally, if you FIFO, the Federal government will have visa requirements at the point you try to FI.
The precedent is very clear and was accurately applied by the judge A treaty does not create domestic law and is only applicable to the extent that it is incorporated into domestic law. She extensively quotes the relevant precedents in the judgement at [42-49].
The broader question is a bit tricky and has many dimensions. It is probably easiest to go over some of the ground rules. There are probably other particular issues that could come up, but those are the only ones that occurred to me at the moment. Caveats and Disclaimers Also, it is worth noting that the considerations that apply are different in criminal v. non-criminal trials, in the U.S. v. other countries, U.S. state courts v. federal courts, in jury trials v. bench trials, and in the civilian v. military justice systems ("A Few Good Men" is a quasi-criminal U.S. court-martial case under the military justice system without a true jury.) At least to start with, I will limit my answer to civilian criminal jury trials in the United Sates. At least in practice and interpretation, the United States has lower expectations of lawyers at trial than in many other common law countries. Prosecutors have higher duties to not be deceptive than criminal defense lawyers. There is a greater duty for defendants to disclose information that could be harmful to their case in civil cases (especially in state courts) than in criminal cases. The ethical duties of lawyers regarding candor in bench trials are more complicated because there are some facts that in a jury trial, a judge is allowed to know and consider when making rulings in the case, but a jury is not allowed to know. Military justice is its own thing with far less formal rules of procedure and deeply different basic assumptions than in trials in civilian courts. For example, in a military trial, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, the defendants and the judges are all soldiers who owe heightened duties to the same government and the military mission, relative to participants in a trial in a civilian court, that can take priority over the duties a lawyer owes to his client, or duties of judges to respect due process. A prosecutor is not permitted to advance frivolous and groundless positions for any reason. Some Notable Rules Opening Arguments and Offers Of Proof You are not allowed in an opening argument to a jury in a civilian criminal trial, or in an offer of proof to a judge in support of the validity of questions you would like to ask, to state that you will present evidence later in the case that you do not believe in good faith that you will introduce. You are not required, however, to identify all evidence that you plan to introduce in your opening statement. But, if you say you will offer up evidence later in the case believing that you will introduce it, and then decide later on that you don't need to and want to offer up that evidence after all, you aren't required to do so. For example, in a case that I tried not so long ago, both sides had expert witnesses. The other side's expert witness testified first and we got him to say everything that we wanted our expert witness to say in cross-examination. We were also worried that our expert witness might say something that would hurt our case because he understood some complicated facts in the case better than the other side's expert witness who didn't realize that those facts were an issue. So, when it was my turn to present the expert witness (who was supposed to have bee the last witness in the case) that we'd said in opening arguments would testify for several hours, we told the court, "we planned on calling Mr. So and So as an expert witness, but have concluded that his testimony would be cumulative so we conclude our case now," after which the Court immediately moved on to closing arguments which we knew that we'd have to present right away, but the other side expected to have several more hours to think about while our last expert witness testified consistently with his previously disclosed expert witness report for a couple of hours. What the lawyer did in "A Few Good Men" (which was in substance an "offer of proof" to provide authority for him to ask certain questions) came close to the line of what is permissible in terms of saying that you will introduce evidence when you don't actually plan to do so, but probably didn't cross the line because he didn't say what they would testify to if called. This would be bad form, and it might undermine the lawyer's credibility with the judge not just in this case, but in the long run, but a lawyer could decide as this one did, that this downside was worth it. Statements About Lying Witnesses Neither the prosecution lawyer nor the defense lawyer is allowed to say that they know that a particular witness was lying. This is because this turns the lawyer into a witness and puts the lawyer's credibility at issue. This is also because a statement like that can be used to signal to the jury that the lawyer knows something based upon evidence that the jury didn't hear (perhaps because they weren't allowed to hear it) that they should consider when weighing credibility. Numerous felony convictions are overturned every year because a prosecutor told a jury that a witness was lying. These statements are prohibited without regard to whether they are true, false or debatable. Of course, a lawyer can say, "as you evaluate the credibility of the first witness you heard you should consider the fact that he will avoid a life in prison term and receive a $1,000,000 life insurance policy payout and that the first witness is blind and yet told you the exact color and texture of the sweater that the defendant was wearing even though the first witness doesn't claim to have ever touched that sweater." The lawyer simply isn't allowed to connect the dots and conclude for the jury that therefore, the first witness is lying. Arguments Based Upon False Inferences As a general rule, in a civilian criminal jury trial, a defense lawyer is allowed to ask questions in cross-examination and make arguments in closing arguments that are based upon inferences from the evidence that was presented that the defense attorney knows to be false, so long as the factual testimony presented is not known to be false. For example, the defense lawyer could argue in closing arguments, "the prosecution did not rule out the possibility that Fred Heinz was present at the murder scene, so they haven't ruled out the possibility that Fred Heinz rather than my client committed the murder," even if the defense lawyer happens to know that Fred Heinz was actually on vacation in another country at the time of the murder. Similarly, a defense lawyer could ask a witness on cross-examination, "Isn't it true that you hide the murder weapon at the requests of your boyfriend and didn't see my client at all that evening?", even if the defense lawyer knows that his client's girlfriend asked the witness to hide the murder weapon and not the witness's boyfriend. The witness of course, would simply answer "no, that isn't true.", but the defense lawyer's question would put the possibility into the heads of the jurors, possibly leading them astray. (The second example is a little more complicated than that, because the defense lawyer's question is only allowed if there is some foundation established in earlier evidence to show that the boyfriend asked the witness to hide the murder weapon. If not, the prosecutor could object to the question and the judge wouldn't allow the witness to answer it. Whether a defense lawyer can ethically ask a question knowing that it violates the rules of evidence hoping that the prosecution won't object to it and knowing that even if the question is overruled by the judge that it will give the jurors a hint about a possibility that is actually known by the defense lawyer to be false, is somewhat of a gray area.) Also, a lawyer is absolutely allowed to ask cross-examination questions not knowing what the answer will be, even though that is risky and usually considered to be bad trial practice, and a lawyer is allowed to ask questions that limit a witness to telling an incomplete story that sounds bad, even though the whole story, if told, would not sound so bad, and even if the lawyer knows that the other side won't get an opportunity to tell the whole story for some reason later on. For example, suppose that the lawyer asks a witness, "you just told the jury that you saw this fight happen?" to which he responds, "yes." "And, you just have normal vision don't you?" "Yes." "But, isn't it true that you were three miles away from the scene of the fight when it happened." "Yes. Now that sounds like it really discredits that witnesses testimony, even if the lawyer asking the question and the witness and the prosecutor and the judge all know that the witness saw the fight occur though binoculars from the top of the Empire State Building. Normally, this could get corrected with rebuttal testimony. But, suppose that the defense lawyer offering this cross-examination asked the questions in a dull voice like it was a tedious detail and noticed that the prosecutor had been distracted looking at texts on his phone while the defendant was cross-examining the witness and so didn't notice this line of questioning, and therefore was likely to say, "no further questions, your honor" when the judge asked him if he had any rebuttal testimony he'd like to offer from this witness. In that situation, the defense lawyer hasn't acted improperly in causing the jury to make a misleading inference from the testimony, and the defense lawyer is allowed in closing arguments to heavily emphasize that the key prosecution witness who says he saw the fight admits that he was three miles away when it happened, knowing that this argument is disingenuous. Ultimately, a defense lawyer's job is to get the best result possible for their client without violating any relevant ethical rules which are specifically and intentionally relaxed for them relative to other lawyers in some respects regarding advancing frivolous and groundless positions. A prosecutor, in contrast, has a duty to advance only claims that the prosecutor believes to be supported by probable cause, to not hide exculpatory evidence, and to seek justice rather than having a duty to try to convict and get a maximum sentence without regard to guilt or innocence (in principle even if not all prosecutors act this way). Testimony And Evidence Know To Be Intentionally False A lawyer is not permitted to let a witness or his client provide testimony to the court that he knows to be perjured. If his witness starts to commit perjury on the stand, the lawyer has to immediately stop the examination of that witness and discuss the problem with the judge. In many circumstances, the lawyer must correct a knowingly false statement that his witness has provided to the court even if he only learns that the statement was knowingly false after that witness is off the stand if the lawyer learns of this before the jury renders its verdict (or for that matter within the time allowed for post-trial motions). Gray areas come in when the lawyer doesn't know that the testimony is true or false, and knows that someone is under oath, but also knows that they aren't a very credible person and that the person sometimes lies in important situations, and indeed avoids knowing the truth. Similarly, gray areas come into play when the lawyer knows that the witness is likely to be mistaken in the testimony that is offered, but knows that the witness is sincerely doing his best to tell the truth on the stand as he understands it to be. Likewise, a lawyer is not allowed to introduce evidence that he knows to be doctored or forged (i.e. claiming that it is authentic), unless the lawyer explains in the course of introducing the evidence that it is a doctored or forged document and is offering it to show that somebody doctored or forged the document. And, if the lawyer later discovers that the document was doctored or forged before the jury renders its verdict (or within the time allowed for post-trial motions), the lawyer has to tell the court that this happened. Pre-Trial Disclosures While the prosecution has a duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence in its possession prior to a trial in a civilian criminal case (something called Brady disclosures), the defense's duty to disclose what evidence it will offer, or what evidence it knows exists, is extremely narrow. There are a couple of kinds of defense strategies (like an alibi defense or a self-defense defense or certain disputes regarding expert testimony) which the defense must disclose that it plans to use at trial, prior to the trial. But, the defense has much more latitude to call surprise witnesses and to introduce surprise evidence at trial than the prosecution does.
Yes. This is legal and it is done routinely. It is called executing a document in counterparts. To be clear, however, as the language of the question is ambiguous on this point, each signature would have to be contemporaneously notarized by the person notarizing that particular signature. In each case that a notarization took place outside the country where the Power of Attorney is to be utilized, normally, it would be necessary to also obtain an apostille for that notarization. An apostille is an official declaration of a designated official in the country of notarization that the notary of the signature in question was, in fact, a notary in good standing at the time that the notarization was done.
In practice, common law courts turn to academic writing, either law review articles or legal treatises or the &quot;Restatements of Law&quot;, on a regular, but infrequent basis. These sources are not binding sources of legal authority but can shed persuasive light on the logic behind a legal rule or the course of action that has been taken in previous similar cases. In civil law countries (i.e. those not descended from the legal system of England), there are far fewer circumstances in which court precedents are sources of law. Much of the gap in credible sources for how ambiguities in the statutory law should be interpreted in these countries comes from academic writing. In a typical civil law country, a leading law professor has more impact on how the law is interpreted than senior appellate court judges. Again, academic writings are not binding legal authority, but in the absence of alternative sources for material interpreting statutes, they are very persuasive.
Edits added below to outline Florida's laws based on OP's comment Jurisdiction does matter but here is a general answer regarding "stand your ground" laws. States that have so-called "stand your ground laws" each have their own language concerning the law. "Stand your ground laws" are often misunderstood but, generally, just mean that a person has no duty to retreat when using deadly physical force for purposes of self-defense or the defense of others. Your examples are more akin to "castle doctrine" laws which I touch on below. Note that all of these laws vary by jurisdiction. I've provided partial examples from Arizona, New York and California. Using deadly physical force for purposes of self-defense or defense of others is complex law and even a complete example from any particular jurisdiction will not be able to cover all circumstances. Each case will be determined by a judge or jury based on the facts of that particular case. Arizona's "stand your ground" statute, as an example, states: B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act. "Stand your ground" simply means that a person doesn't have to first attempt to retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. Arizona's statute regarding justification for self-defense states (emphasis mine): A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force. B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified: In response to verbal provocation alone; or To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless: (a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and (b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. Note the phrase, "extent a reasonable person." This means that the actions of a person using deadly force will be measured against what a "reasonable person" would do in similar circumstances. Some states have a duty to retreat, particularly when in a public place, before using deadly force. New York, as an example, has a "duty to retreat" before using deadly force except in specific circumstances (emphasis mine): A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20. Castle Doctrine Laws typically refer to what one may do in their own home when it comes to the use of deadly force. Some states have extended the "castle doctrine" to include personal automobiles as well. California's "castle doctrine" statute, as an example, states that if one is in their own home and someone "unlawfully and forcibly" enters the home one can presume that the person in his or her residence "held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury": Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. In California's statute both the resident and the person using force to gain entry have to know or have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. If a person simply entered an unlocked home then the resident would have to have some other reasonable reason to believe that they were in imminent peril of death or great bodily injury. Wikipedia has a reasonable entry on the adoption of "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" statutes and gives a state-by-state breakdown of both. Note that these laws have seen a lot of change recently and any particular entry for a state may not be accurate. Florida's self-defense laws Florida's "Use or threatened use of force in defense of person" states: 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be. Florida outlines the cases where use, or threatened use, of force is justified. Notice that in the law Florida specifically states that the person threatened does not have a duty to retreat. Florida also specifically states that a person has a "right to stand his or her ground" if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and is not engaged in criminal activity. Florida statute also specifically outlines the right to use self-defense within one's home and vehicle. Florida has a "castle doctrine" similar to what was outlined above and similar in nature to New York's and California's laws: The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; Florida has a longer list of exemptions related to who may have used force to enter a home including ownership interest in the property or vehicle, children and grandchildren, the person who engaged defensive force was involved in criminal activity and law enforcement officers. Florida's Justifiable Use Of Force is chapter 776 discusses when force can be used. There was an attempt by the Florida legislature in 2019 to change the standard by which use of force could be justified from "reasonably believes" force is necessary to "a reasonably cautious and prudent person in the same circumstances would objectively believe" force was necessary. The bill was withdrawn in May, 2019.
From a US perspective, in a word, "no". Firstly, "presumption of innocence" is in a trial, not in police interactions. Being arrested does not violate the presumption of innocence. Police do not need any reason to interact with you or ask you questions. Police can arrest you if they have probable cause to suspect you have committed a crime, but this is not always necessary. More on this later(in the fourth section). Secondly, I wouldn't describe requesting to see your ticket, or any document as a "violent communication", in general. It may be rude or insulting, but not violent. (Also "violent communication" is not a legal term. The closest legal terms, verbal assault and threatening communication, are also not this.) More over, there is no indication of am implication of lying in this request. Thirdly, there are many situations in which possessing a document or credential is not sufficient; one must legally display or present them upon request. For example, multiple occupational licenses such as liquor licenses and barber/cosmetology licenses require that the licenses be prominently displayed; whereas, in California at least, a vehicle driver on a public road must not only possess their driver's license and proof of insurance, they must produce them upon the request of any law enforcement officer (Source: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18). Fourthly, there are situations in which you can be legally searched and questioned without reasonable suspicion. Examples of this include boarder searches and sobriety checkpoints. Sources: (US Supreme Court rulings): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz A note on sources: bdb484 and I have opposing court case sources. My sources have binding precedent over all courts in the US, save the US Supreme Court, whereas theirs don't have any binding precedent, but are more directly on-topic.
Strictly speaking, that principle isn't even true everywhere in the US. The maxim "nulla poena sine lege" (i.e. "no punishment without a prior penal statute") was historically applicable to civil law systems, such as are found in continental Europe. In common-law systems, there was never a tradition in which a crime wasn't a crime unless it violated a penal law, because crimes themselves were traditionally defined by court precedent instead of by statute. In US federal court, the only allowable common-law offense is contempt of court. This is due to a court decision (United States v. Hudson), in which the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have the constitutional authority to hear a case in which someone is accused of committing a common-law crime. Even so, and even though there is a federal contempt statute, the Supreme Court has ruled that contempt is an inherent power of any court, and statutes around it only regulate the power (but the power would be there even without a statute). At the state level, some states have explicitly passed laws saying something is not a crime if it doesn't violate the penal code (although this doesn't necessarily apply to contempt); see section 6 of the California Penal Code for an example. In other states, like Florida, common-law crimes still exist; Florida has a statute saying that any common-law offense is still a crime unless a statute has explicitly covered that same subject matter (section 775.01), and specifies a generic penalty for anything which is an offense at common law and not addressed by any Florida penal statute (section 775.02). While this is sort of statutory (as it's a statute giving the penal provision), it's also basically not (as no statute has to say "X is illegal," because it's enough that English common law makes X illegal).