Understanding the Difference Between "Adjudication Withheld" and "Adjudicated Guilty" Updated: Jul 28, 2023 When navigating the criminal justice system, it's essential to be familiar with the legal terminology that may impact the outcome of your case. Two common terms that often arise in criminal proceedings are "adjudication withheld" and "adjudicated guilty." These phrases refer to different legal outcomes and can have significant consequences for individuals facing criminal charges. In this blog post, we will explore the distinctions between these terms and their implications in criminal cases. Adjudication Withheld: "Adjudication withheld" is a legal disposition in which a judge refrains from entering a formal adjudication of guilt or innocence after a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a criminal offense or is found guilty in court. Instead of a guilty verdict, the court "withholds adjudication," effectively placing the defendant in a probationary status. Key Characteristics of "Adjudication Withheld": No Formal Conviction: One of the most significant advantages of adjudication withheld is that it does not result in a formal conviction on the defendant's criminal record. This means that the individual can legally answer "no" when asked if they have been convicted of a crime in certain circumstances. Probation and Conditions: Despite not being formally convicted, the defendant is typically placed on probation and must adhere to specific conditions set by the court. These conditions may include community service, counseling, drug testing, or restitution, depending on the nature of the offense. Completion of Probation: Upon successful completion of the probationary period and fulfillment of all court-ordered requirements, the case may be closed without a formal conviction on the defendant's record. Seal or Expunge: In some cases, after the successful completion of probation, the defendant may be eligible to have their criminal record sealed or expunged, subject to the laws of the jurisdiction. Adjudicated Guilty: "Adjudicated guilty" is the formal legal declaration by a court that a defendant is guilty of committing a criminal offense. When a defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty at trial, the court enters a formal adjudication of guilt on their criminal record. Key Characteristics of "Adjudicated Guilty": Formal Conviction: An "adjudicated guilty" verdict results in a formal conviction on the defendant's criminal record. This conviction can have significant implications, affecting employment opportunities, housing, and other aspects of the defendant's life. Potential Penalties: Depending on the nature and severity of the offense, "adjudicated guilty" can lead to various penalties, including fines, probation, imprisonment, or a combination of these consequences. Limited Expungement Eligibility: In most jurisdictions, individuals who have been adjudicated guilty have limited eligibility for having their criminal record sealed or expunged, making it more challenging to have the conviction removed from public records. Understanding the difference between "adjudication withheld" and "adjudicated guilty" is crucial for anyone involved in the criminal justice system. "Adjudication withheld" provides a potential opportunity for defendants to avoid a formal conviction on their record by successfully completing probation and fulfilling court-ordered conditions. On the other hand, "adjudicated guilty" results in a formal conviction with more significant and lasting consequences. If you find yourself facing criminal charges, contact Beckwith Legal where we can guide you through the legal process, explain the potential outcomes, and work toward the most favorable resolution for your case. You'd 'Better Call Beck!'
It is not semantics. It is the law. Do you know the difference? Sounds like you don't.
And yet you started a thread that Trump’s felony convictions would be overturned.
You are correct. I jumped the gun on that. It seemed that there was at the time jury malfeasance and the guilty verdict might be overturned. But I was mistaken. At that time we only had the jury verdict. No conviction.
A finding of guilt isn't necessary to prove something happened. Alec Baldwin shot and killed someone. He was never found guilty. Did it not happen?
The problem you have, is you're stupid.
So you believe that Trump raped someone but can't prove it. Just like how he committed insurrection, and colluded with the Russians. Got it.
I suggest you read the transcript of E. Jean Carroll's testimony from the first defamation trial, if you can get it. What she testified to was a sexual assault (my recollection is that it was penetration with a finger, which is why it did not qualify as a rape under NY law). Now, you can tell me that you think she was lying, but Trump had the chance to take the stand and deny it under oath and chose not to. And the jury believed her.
It was proven that Trump committed sexual assault. It was in a civil trial, where the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal trial, but the sexual assault was proven nonetheless.
It is amazing how far the party of "family values" has fallen.
And yet you started a thread that Trump’s felony convictions would be overturned.
You are correct. I jumped the gun on that. It seemed that there was at the time jury malfeasance and the guilty verdict might be overturned. But I was mistaken. At that time we only had the jury verdict. No conviction.
But you said his felony convictions would be overturned. Not the jury’s verdict.
So you believe that Trump raped someone but can't prove it. Just like how he committed insurrection, and colluded with the Russians. Got it.
From the official Court Document. Katie Johnson was 12 years old. (June - Sept 1994)
On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance. 12. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fuqking abortion".
Lol that's some wild erotic liberal fanfiction. Too bad that case was dismissed, and then dropped twice. Anything else? How about excerpts from Ashley Biden's diary?
These court cases have evolved into a bunch of nonsense, just freaked out people grasping at straws. This election will happen, on time, and Trump will be on the ballot in all states. This is all that matters. Talk is cheap. Trump is gonna kick that unknown bimbos *ss. Real Clear Politics confirms this and makes it really really clear. There is no path to victory for Harris aside from illegal votes and Trump is ready this time. Lara no joke.
You are correct. I jumped the gun on that. It seemed that there was at the time jury malfeasance and the guilty verdict might be overturned. But I was mistaken. At that time we only had the jury verdict. No conviction.
But you said his felony convictions would be overturned. Not the jury’s verdict.
I misspoke at the time. For someone to be convicted of a felony you need a guilty jury verdict AND a certificate of conviction (by the judge)/imposition of the sentence.
Liable, but not guilty. Two different words with very different meanings. Always remember that. "Adjudicated" LOL
IN the US the burden of proof for a criminal conviction is a unanimous decision by a jury of peers. This is the highest legal standard by far in our justice system. It is an enormously high burden for a prosecution. And because of it many, many criminals never see indictments brought. Like Trump for many years.
The media erroneously believes this standard is a requirement for us to determine the character of a person we are voting for. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not required to use that standard in any way. We can look at the body of evidence.
it is ironic that Trumpers want a formal criminal conviction against Trump (Sally wants the sentencing first) before they determine he is a criminal but throw the most deranged accusations of Biden crime family and lock her up freely.
So you believe that Trump raped someone but can't prove it. Just like how he committed insurrection, and colluded with the Russians. Got it.
I suggest you read the transcript of E. Jean Carroll's testimony from the first defamation trial, if you can get it. What she testified to was a sexual assault (my recollection is that it was penetration with a finger, which is why it did not qualify as a rape under NY law). Now, you can tell me that you think she was lying, but Trump had the chance to take the stand and deny it under oath and chose not to. And the jury believed her.
It was proven that Trump committed sexual assault. It was in a civil trial, where the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal trial, but the sexual assault was proven nonetheless.
It is amazing how far the party of "family values" has fallen.
Right? Their argument now is that "since he only forcibly penetrated her with his finger it technically wasn't rape". This where they are, making excuses for a serial sexual assaulter because if you squint real hard and try not to think about it too much, he's "technically" not a rapist.
This is really interesting. I'm no expert on the military but my understanding is that Walz rose through the armed forces meritocracy from the bottom to a very high officer rank, while most officers go through the academies or OTC school. Which means he had his stuff together in a major way.
Hertling:
Many followers not familiar with the military are asking me “so what’s the big deal about a command sergeant major?” Walz joined at 18 as a private. Rose through the NCO (sergeant) ranks, each requiring extreme competence at increasingly demanding jobs with more people & responsibility at every rank. When you reach “Master Sergeant” you are selected to serve as a First Sergeant (1SG) of a unit…if you’re good enough. Then, those 1SGTs compete for selection to Sergeant Major. Only the best Sergeant Majors are selected for Command Sergeant Major (CSM) billets. CSMs serve as the senior enlisted person in the unit and the advisor to Commanders at battalion and above. Having served with dozens of CSMs as my unit & command “battle buddy” I will attest they were all awesome. They know what they’re doing. They uphold standards. They speak their minds to all ranks (private to generals). They’re not afraid of getting bad news because they know how to fix things when they go wrong. And they serve the command (their commander and their soldiers) with a selfless integrity and a complete dedication. During social events and informal occasions, they’re usually a whole bunch of fun. And they always have great stories. But they’re always professional. So, those are my thoughts on Command Sergeants Major. While I don’t know the details of @GovTimWalz career wearing the cloth of our country, just the fact that he volunteered to serve and wore the CSM rank tells me a lot about him.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
But you said his felony convictions would be overturned. Not the jury’s verdict.
I misspoke at the time. For someone to be convicted of a felony you need a guilty jury verdict AND a certificate of conviction (by the judge)/imposition of the sentence.
You learned this all in the last couple months? Why didn’t you realize that before?
This is really interesting. I'm no expert on the military but my understanding is that Walz rose through the armed forces meritocracy from the bottom to a very high officer rank, while most officers go through the academies or OTC school. Which means he had his stuff together in a major way.
Hertling:
Many followers not familiar with the military are asking me “so what’s the big deal about a command sergeant major?” Walz joined at 18 as a private. Rose through the NCO (sergeant) ranks, each requiring extreme competence at increasingly demanding jobs with more people & responsibility at every rank. When you reach “Master Sergeant” you are selected to serve as a First Sergeant (1SG) of a unit…if you’re good enough. Then, those 1SGTs compete for selection to Sergeant Major. Only the best Sergeant Majors are selected for Command Sergeant Major (CSM) billets. CSMs serve as the senior enlisted person in the unit and the advisor to Commanders at battalion and above. Having served with dozens of CSMs as my unit & command “battle buddy” I will attest they were all awesome. They know what they’re doing. They uphold standards. They speak their minds to all ranks (private to generals). They’re not afraid of getting bad news because they know how to fix things when they go wrong. And they serve the command (their commander and their soldiers) with a selfless integrity and a complete dedication. During social events and informal occasions, they’re usually a whole bunch of fun. And they always have great stories. But they’re always professional. So, those are my thoughts on Command Sergeants Major. While I don’t know the details of @GovTimWalz career wearing the cloth of our country, just the fact that he volunteered to serve and wore the CSM rank tells me a lot about him.
yeah yeah but what about Kamala's laugh? And trump only used his finger so he's not really a rapist...
