Sentences with phrase «judges and juries do»

Judges and Juries do a great job.

Not exact matches

School administrators, who often play the roles of juries and judges when it comes to determining whether sexual assault took place, are ill - equipped to do so: «There's a competency gap here.»

just because you're incapable of meaningful debate does not mean you can rise above it all and declare yourself the judge and jury.

In the case of these Catholic priests who did just that, they should be made to stand before a judge and jury for thier actions.

The teaching of purity does not make any human being the judge and jury over others, nor does Deuteronomy, despite what this passage sounds like when you carve it out of the book.

«However, I intend to do so before an independent Tribunal, not before yourselves acting as a judge and jury in your own case.

I don't think any judge or jury would accept your explanation, and as I learned, neither would God.

Absolutely, it does make sense to at least 6 billion people on earth including but not limited to professionals and the elite such as Doctors, Scientists, Juries, Judges, Magistrates, Politicians, even by the person who holds the highest position of the most powerful country of the world.

I'm condemning judge, jury and executioner courtesy of the lynch mob... You or I don't know their relationship....

Don't put them in the position of being judge and jury.

The three - judge panel did, however, rule that there was sufficient evidence for the charges to support a conviction of quid - pro-quo bribery if a jury was instructed properly, and said the Skeloses can be retried.

«I then did what a federal judge does when a jury is deadlocked and issued an Alan charge trying to get them to move on their positions.

It was the Special Grand Jury's role to assess the credibility of witnesses that did testify and a judge's responsibility to make sure their conclusions were supported by the evidence.

Valerie E. Caproni, the presiding judge in Federal District Court, kept lawyers and prospective jurors at the courthouse late on Monday in order to ensure that jury selection did not take too long.

Silver's conviction for doing legislative favors in return for legal referral fees and 12 - year prison sentence was reversed because of incorrect jury instructions, but prosecutors from the office of acting U.S. Attorney Joon Kim told the judge it is in the «public interest» to retry him quickly.

Programme managers act as judge, jury, and, if the research doesn't go well, executioner.

These two facts lead to the intriguing question: How does the brain enable judges, juries, and you and me to perform these tasks?

After the judge dismissed the «jury» at the beginning of the trial (he actually didn't make us leave, the dismissal was for dramatic effect), he and the lawyers went through the procedures that would be undertaken in a real case to determine if evidence should be admitted for the jury to see.

You tell them to «get along» or you play judge and jury, telling both sides what they should do.

A judge and jury and high - priced lawyers are going to help decide so it probably doesn't even matter who is right.

I've been creating juried (judged) works of art and like many others who learned the hard way, I did it before we had such wonderful tests and tools.

They do show that the company's board members — by appointing themselves judge and jury — are aware how serious the public is taking his misdeeds.

A climate scientist can not be judge and jury: the fact that Gleick may have been «defending a cause that he passionately views as righteous» does not make his deceit, lying and data theft a moral action.

Not so, like lawyers bringing up inadmissible evidence or points in trial and the judge tells the jury to ignore it, the damage is already done.

That is, you don't expect each lawyer, defence and accusation, to defend both point of views: the judge or jury (in science: experiment) will decide which side is right.

For the purposes of legal practice this doesn't really matter: judges and juries have discretion to decide on an outcome that will generally fall within a particular range or to explain their reasons for going outside it.

However, the lawyer did not provide what response should be given to the jury by the judge and gave no written response to the court to give to the jury.

[Judge did not commit reversible error in the de bene admission of certain cocaine evidence and his jury instructions were adequate to cure potential prejudice.]

The jury does all of this according to the judge's instructions and a verdict form provided by the judge.

But Judge Koh noted that the jury was not bound by the preliminary injunction decision and that certain evidence was considered by the jury that was not available at the preliminary injunction stage, including among other things Apple's concession that the original iPad did not implement this design patent.

Considering what a mess the Monday testimony and lawyer argument on the effect of the new claim construction was (because, frankly, both parties had previously hedged their bets as they didn't know what the appeals court would do), the jury is probably now very confused about it (and Judge Koh did the right thing by denying both parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law since there are reasonable arguments for and against infringement, for and against validity).

2 - Will you bill me more if you have to do «extra» work; i.e., researching legal issues, writing legal memoranda, arguing motions, rejecting unacceptable offers from prosecutors and judges and making additional court appearances, or even trying the case in a jury trial.

I didn't disagree with the 2012 jury's verdict (apart from validity and the fact that I would have actually seen a stronger design patent case in connection with tablets than with smartphones, as Judge Koh did in her preliminary injunction decision as well) nearly as much as with its approach.

While actuarial evidence is not needed per se, any proposed questions that do not use such information must include a significant amount of relevant information for a jury to make an accurate determination in future loss claims and be approved by the judge.

If you don't know, the term «Markman» refers to the 1996 Supreme Court case of Markman v. Westview Instruments where the Court held that a judge should decide what the language of a patent means as a matter of law and not a jury.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's only errors were in the wording of the question to the jury regarding causation, and that the trial judge stated he did not have jurisdiction to poll the jury when he did.

However, the Court found that the defects in the question to the jury did not necessitate a new trial, and that the trial judge was correct not to poll the jury in the circumstances, despite having the jurisdiction to do so.

Because your tone doesn't fit the case that the judge and the jury are learning about, they will soon start doubting your honesty, sincerity, and competence.

«The adversary system assumes that the judge and jury will do the judging and that defence counsel will do the defending».

Armed with my legal knowledge and my tablet, I was sure that my command of law and technology would not only impress my clients, but judges, juries, and opposing counsel — and all the while I could give myself greenie points for doing my part to save trees.

Or the jury could have agreed with the judges» reasoning: prospective law students were sophisticated consumers and should have done their own independent research before attending.

In the case of litigation where infringement and validity of the patent are at issue, my degree provides a technical foundation which helps me fully understand the invention so I can distil relatively complex technology into more easily understandable arguments to present to a judge or jury who often do not have a technical background.

Answer: Doing so will probably get you kicked off of the jury, plus at least a lecture from the judge about violating your oath as a juror, a $ 250.00 fine, and a court order to go home and write a five - page essay on the importance of the Sixth Amendment.

But far too many lawyers misuse common words, thinking they have some legal meaning when they do not, and wind up only confusing and annoying readers, including other lawyers, judges, and juries.

Would any sane lawyer expect a judge (or jury) to do anything but agree that if the document in question is an agreement between the parties, and was signed prior to the agreement in question, it falls into the «prior agreements» category?

Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which made clear that making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

You were in court listening to a judge trying to explain some principle of law to a jury, without using the words or phrases «trust me», «it's magic», «think of it like religion, you don't have to understand, just accept and believe» or «abracadbra»?

«You're not doing the job for your client if you're not zealous to a fault, but you're not an effective advocate for them if you go before the judge and jury and get in trouble because you're not forthcoming enough about discovery,» says Duffy.

While courts do not acknowledge or encourage jury nullification, judges take «no steps... to prevent jurors from nullifying, jurors are not subject to legal sanction for nullifying, and verdicts that are the result of nullification are not subject to review» (Hreno, at para. 2)

Where a summary offence is tried with an indictable offence (pursuant to s 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988), but the judge rules that there is no case to answer on the indictable offence, the summary offence does not have to be withdrawn from the jury and retried before a magistrates» court.