Sentences with phrase «as a trial judge deciding»

Not exact matches

At a hearing in Moscow's Tverskoy District Court to decide whether Magomedov and his associates should be detained before their trial, Judge Maria Sizintseva said they had acted as part of an organised crime group and had tried to put pressure on witnesses.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni also set Jan. 8 as a backup date if lawyer conflicts force a delay, or if she decides to grant defense motions to split the trial of Percoco and seven co-defendants in two and needs a date for a second trial.

As Tex Parte Blog reports, a three - judge panel of the court decided yesterday to uphold the trial court's denial of an injunction.

75 The jurisprudence relating to sentence reduction as a Charter remedy has recently been reviewed by the Supreme Court in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 (S.C.C.), decided after this case was argued before the trial judge.

As you know, there's a trial now going on, on the other side of the big mountains far to the west of us, where a judge is deciding the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy laws and has heard evidence that from members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints» belief that polygamy is required by their religions tenets.

In this capacity, Mr. Tufts sat as judge once a month and decided more than 125 small claims trials.

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).

If, as seems to be the case, the trial judge in the new Fisher trial did apply the Snell robust and pragmatic common sense approach, then, assuming there is an appeal and assuming that Aristorenas is still good law once Clements is decided, the Court of Appeal may have to determine whether Fisher is consistent with Aristorenas.

And it doesn't matter whether the reviewing court rather than the trial court makes this finding.The crux of the decision lies in the fact that «the State failed to prove its case as a matter of law, not merely because [the judge], as a 13th juror, would have decided it differently from the other 12 jurors.»

As the court interpreted the two reports together, it concluded that the trial judge could have reasonably decided that the reports constituted a good faith effort to summarize the causal relationship between the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the standard of care and Hathcock's injuries and subsequent damages.

Going further, the Court of Appeal indicated that, as per the decision in Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc., 2015 ONCA 670 (CanLII), at para. 20, the Sagaz test necessarily «includes considerations of finality, the apparent cogency of the evidence, delay, fairness and prejudice» and that an appellate court must consider the importance of deferring to trial judges, who are «in the best position to decide whether, at the expense of finality, fairness dictates that the trial be reopened».

At the prosecutor's request and over Harris» objection, the trial judge instructed the jury that if they decided that Harris had tried to change his appearance to avoid being identified, they could consider it as evidence of his feelings of guilt.

A hearing before a Provincial Court judge to decide whether there is sufficient evidence for the accused to go to trial; a preliminary inquiry only takes place where the accused is charged with an indictable offence and chooses to be tried by a judge or judge and jury of the Court of Queen's Bench; also known as a preliminary hearing

A hearing before a Provincial Court Judge to decide whether there is sufficient evidence for the accused to go to trial; a preliminary hearing only takes place where the accused is charged with an indictable offence and chooses to be tried by a judge or judge and jury of the Court of Queen's Bench; also known as a preliminary inJudge to decide whether there is sufficient evidence for the accused to go to trial; a preliminary hearing only takes place where the accused is charged with an indictable offence and chooses to be tried by a judge or judge and jury of the Court of Queen's Bench; also known as a preliminary injudge or judge and jury of the Court of Queen's Bench; also known as a preliminary injudge and jury of the Court of Queen's Bench; also known as a preliminary inquiry

The judge or justice of the peace then decides to either release the accused on bail or keep them in jail while they wait for their trial or some other result (such as a guilty plea or a withdrawal of their charges).

There was certainly nothing unreasonable about trial counsel's alleged failure to call corroborating evidence on these issues when the proposed evidence did not relate to material issues but only to facts the trial judge accepted... In the result, we did not find any error in the reasoning of the trial judge and also find that trial counsel did not act unreasonably by deciding not to call corroborating evidence on the issues of his relationship with Ms. Peters and physical condition as the evidence on these matters had already been accepted by the trial judge (at paras. 11 - 12).

On the other hand, where the path taken by the trial judge through confused or conflicting evidence is not at all apparent, or there are difficult issues of law that need to be confronted but which the trial judge has circumnavigated without explanation, or where (as here) there are conflicting theories for why the trial judge might have decided as he or she did, at least some of which would clearly constitute reversible error, the appeal court may in some circumstances consider itself unable to give effect to the statutory right of appeal.

Although a different judge decided a fee request than the judge presiding over germane matters, the Murrells failed to cite authority as to why de novo review was warranted under the circumstances The trial court even apportioned out noncompensable work from compensable work, with the Murrells failing to pinpoint what aspects of the apportionment were wrong.

After considering the relevant considerations — such as the probative value of the evidence, whether it was self - serving, the reliability of the recording, and the prejudice that the applicant would face if it were to be admitted — the judge decided that the recordings could be relied upon during the trial.

The council, now known as Corby borough council, lodged an appeal on 19 August, and the trial judge has until 11 September to decide whether to grant permission.

In some of the cases, as, for example, Moore v. Wienecke (ONCA) decided pre Resurfice on Athey mc but affirmed post Resurfice on the basis that the trial judge's decision amounted to but - for findings of fact.

The Court decided the trial judge had carefully weighed the evidence as a whole, including the statistical evidence, the evidence specific to the Plaintiff, and the three expert opinions, all of which involved some speculation and held that she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities:

In deciding whether to exercise these powers, the judge is to assess whether he or she can achieve the full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings on the basis of the motion record — as may be supplemented by oral evidence under rule 20.04 (2.2)-- or if the attributes and advantages of the trial process require that these powers only be exercised at a trial.

Windsor v US left the law in a funny state: same - sex married couples had to decide whether they were allowed to claim tax concessions as spouses but, since the interpretation of a trial judge could be overruled by an appeal court in a later case, they had no real certainty.

In deciding if these powers should be used to weed out a claim as having no chance of success or be used to resolve all or part of an action, the motion judge must ask the following question: can the full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings be achieved by way of summary judgment, or can this full appreciation only be achieved by way of a trial?

«Trial judges have tremendous discretion to decide what is fair to the accused as well as what's fair to the community,» he said.

If you and your spouse disagree on even one small thing — such as how to structure parenting time so you can each see your children on holidays — your agreement isn't global, and you'll likely have to go to trial to have the judge decide any remaining issues.

That depends mostly on how much fighting takes place as the spouses try to resolve by agreement the legal issues (custody; a parenting plan; support; and division of property and debt) that the judge must decide following a trial if the parties can not agree between themselves directly or through mediation or with the assistance of and negotiations through their lawyers.