Best Answer

Twenty days

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: The Habeas Corpus Act assured a person of a trial within?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Related questions

In how many days did the Habeas Corpus Act assure a person of trial?

Within twenty days.

What is the main essential in a writ of habeas corpus?

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a letter to a jailer instructing to either put the criminal to court OR excuse him from court and let him go free.The importance of a Habeas Corpus is to free yourselffrom being illegally detained in a jail, prison, etc., by showing one, or some of your U S Constitutional rights, amendments were violated and you are being held illegally.

Starring Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis what is the movie within a movie in The Player?

Habeas Corpus

What are Effects of the writ habeas corpus to individual rights?

Habeas Corpus enhanced the civil rights of citizens. From a broad perspective, the government cannot "create rights", only the people through the elective process can identify and place into written laws, rights that citizens have. In the situation of habeas corpus, this had a significant meaning in the US and also in England. In speaking about the US, the US Constitution, a judge must issue a writ requiring an imprisoned person to be brought to a stated place at a certain time in a court to determine if a person is rightly imprisoned and should be tried in a court of the persons peers. Normally anyone arrested, must be brought before a judge within 48 hours to determine if the arrest was legitimate. This ensures that persons are not held in prison indefinitely and without being charged with a crime. At times of national crisis, this writ of habeas corpus may be suspended.

The legal right of a person who is imprisoned without explanation to appear in court within a reasonable time?

I believe you might be referring to a writ of "Habeus Corpus."Each jurisdiction will have "Rules of the Court" e.g. Rules of the Federal Magistrates Court of the Commonwealth of Australia. Each set of rules will contain a section/area on 'Standing' that is the authority to appear before the court as a 'party' to an action, i.e. applicant/respondent, prosecutor/defendant, plaintiff/defendant, etc; or as a 'friend of the court' such representation being necessary for equitable court process.

Does a writ of habeas corpus apply to non citizens?

Its precepts apply to ALL people accused of a crime within our governmental jurisdiction, not just American citizens. So the correct answer is a resounding YES, writs of habeas corpus most definitely DO APPLY to non-citizens. It says so right there in the Fourteenth Amendment, and also in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. This is an extremely important question since it affects 9 million US legally resident non-citizens.

Why is Habeas Corpus so important?

In Latin Habeas Corpus means, "bring the body." Through this law a prisoner may be released from unlawful detention (being held with insufficient evidence or cause). This law safeguards individual freedoms against arbitrary state action.There are several writs of habeas corpus. The writ most often referred to in U.S. law in abbreviation as "habeas corpus" is the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. This is Law Latin that means "that you have the body to submit to (the court)" ('possession of the body' is a concept in search-and-seizure law, the idea being that an arrest is literally a 'seizure of a person's body'). The writ is also known as the "Great Writ".It is a common-law order issued by the court to an individual detaining another (usually the Sheriff, or "Shire Reeve") under color of law, ordering them to bring their detainee before the court, for the purpose of conducting an inquiry into the reasons for the detainee's imprisonment.Ostensibly, these reasons may be found by the court to be baseless. In such a case, the court presumably also has the authority to order the detainee's release.The court's authority to issue writs of habeas corpus is derived at English Common Law from the Habeas Corpus Act (31 Car. 2, 1679). The Act is one of the "four great charters of English liberty".One of them, termed the writ of habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum, which is Law Latin for "that you have the body to do and to receive", was a writ sent from a superior court to an inferior court, removing the case, and, incidentally, the "body of the defendant", from the inferior court to the superior court.Today, at U.S. law, this is known as the writ of certiorari. This writ is most prominently used by the Supreme Court of the United States where it chooses to hear a case it deems of sufficient importance to the law to merit its consideration (there are actually very few appeals as of right to the Court, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution).Sometimes a case on which the Court decides to issue certiorari is referred to as having been "appealed to the Supreme Court", but this phrase is a misnomer. The Court actually issues comparatively few writs of certiorari from among the petitions it receives. Where the Court declines to issue the writ, the decision of the lower court, be it the United States Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court of a U.S. State, stands.The writs of habeas corpus remain good law in the United States to this day.

Is a court order directing that a jailed person be brought before a court to determine the reason he she was being held in jail?

The question is unclear. Except in the smallest of jurisdictions, the police are usually not responsible for ensuring the transport of each and every single prisoner to court. That function is usually handled by the Detention Deputies of the local Sheriff's Office.If that is not the information you are looking for, please re-word and re-submit the question.Additional Information:Two possible answers to this question are the writ of habeas corpus, which is a court order and an arrestee's right to an initial appearance before a court after an arrest under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, which is not a court order.The writ of habeas corpus is a court order directing anyone having the custody of an individual to bring that individual before the court for an inquiry into the legitimacy of that person's detention. However, this is not something that "requires that police must bring EACH prisoner to court" as the question is phrased. It is issued only upon specific application by someone on behalf of a specific individual.The requirement that police must bring EACH and every prisoner to court is the right of individuals to what is called an "initial appearance." This is embodied in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, rather than a court order. Rule 5 requires that every person arrested (with certain exceptions stated within the Rule) must be brought before the court for an inquiry into the legality of the person's arrest and detention and an explanation of the person's rights. At this point in time the individual is a "prisoner" in the sense that he/she is under arrest and detention, but is not a "prisoner" in the sense of having being convicted and in prison serving a sentence.Note that this rule governs federal criminal procedure. Criminal procedure among the states will vary according to their own rules, but since most state rules are modeled on the federal rules, any variation will be minimal.

What structures within the ovary are responsible for production of each hormone?

corpus luteum

What do you call the thick white band of nerves deep within the brain?

Corpus callosum

Do you need a passport to fly from New York to Corpus?

None needed to travel within the US.

What prevented monarchs from jailing people for purely political reasons and from indefinitely holding prisoners without trial?

In very general terms, if you're talking about absolute monarchs, nothing. But of course that varies across the time period and the individual monarchs we're talking about. The problem for a monarch would be if a significant political challenge existed to their authority: for example, a powerful noble who had support from other nobles. Attempting to go after them might just expose how weak the monarch's own political support was. The writ of Habeas Corpus in England allowed some rights against arbitrary detention, by allowing review by a court. A court was still open to find that a monarch's actions were legitimate, however, if they were viewed as within the scope of royal authority. A particularly useful device for governments in English history was Acts of Attainder, which were legal declarations that a particular person had committed a particular crime, and was thus liable for punishment. These did not require a trial.