Sentences with phrase «because jury trials»

The first argument is that because jury trials have been part of our history since (at least) Magna Carta, they are at the core of our system of justice.

This is because jury trials aren't ultimately about what evidence is admitted.

Because a jury trial offers no guarantee of a successful outcome — even in the most seemingly open - and - shut of cases.

Not exact matches

While there were dissenters, the Supreme Court found that Skilling's negative publicity didn't prevent him from receiving a fair trial — especially because Houston was the fourth - most - populous city in the country, allowing for a large jury pool.

That democracy can be made to work, that by the scientific method we can gain mastery over the latent resources of the universe, that trial by jury is practicable, that torture is a foolish method of seeking evidence in the courts, that chattel slavery is a failure — such things we take for granted, not because we individually are wiser than our forebears, who disbelieved them all, but because we share in a social tradition which we did not even help to create, but which has shaped and conformed our thinking with irresistible power.

Trial and jury consultant Marshall Hennington said one reason personal - injury lawyers do so well in The Bronx is because «disenfranchised» jurors often make decisions based on emotions rather than evidence.

In Thursday's ruling, the appellate court ruled the judge's erroneous instruction to the jury at Silver's trial «was not harmless because it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same conclusion if properly instructed, as is required by law for the verdict to stand.»

It was clear early on in the jury's deliberations in the federal corruption trial of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver that things were not going well, with one juror asking to be excused because she felt physically unwell due feeling «pressured.»

District Attorney Dan Donovan made the request to modernize his office's system — which records footage during grand jury proceedings, trials and line - ups — because the current system installed in 2005 was nearly obsolete.

But White Plains federal Judge Kenneth Karas said such evidence would confuse the jury because, if true, it's a «completely different scheme» than for what Smith will be on trial beginning Jan. 5 when he faces corruption charges for allegedly trying to buy his way onto the Republican line for mayor last year.

Besides, disgust could never be eliminated from trials, because this would mean never exposing the jury to descriptions of crimes or pictures of crime scenes.

But Merck won most of the trials to reach juries, because plaintiffs» lawyers had a hard time linking any particular problem with the drug itself.

Nasa's top climate scientist Jim Hansen told a jury at the trial of 20 environmental activists that he had begun speaking out about climate change again in the past five years because of his grandchildren.

Also, I'm pretty confident that if there ever were an actual trial (which there won't be because the claims will be dismissed on summary judgment), with a majority white jury, the Defendants would win pretty easily.

Also, the judge is within his rights to punish the potential juror if he determines that the potential juror is actually lying about his ability to be impartial in an effort to evade jury service rather than because he sincerely believes that he can't be fair, and judges have wide authority to determine the credibility and truthfulness of statements made to him in open court (i.e. if the trial judge finds that you are lying, this determination will almost always be honored by an appellate court considering the judge's actions).

The trial court found that Thomas» requested jury instruction based on the statute was not warranted because he retreated to his vehicle after firing a weapon on someone else's property.

Also, probably at least 10 % of acquittals are of people who were factually guilty, because juries get it right something on the order of 90 % of the time when cases go to trial.

A criminal jury trial is practically unheard of for offences under the Competition Act, because the accused normally plead out so the process is faster, especially in cases like this one, where there is no real case law available under the act, Khoury notes.

In simpler terms, just because a defendant is not found guilty of a criminal act, it does not preclude that defendant from going before a civil jury in a civil trial.

It also noted that trial and appellate courts were «not entirely powerless» because a judgment may be vacated if «there is no evidence to support the jury's decision,» and because «appellate review is available to test the sufficiency of the jury instructions.»

See, e. g., Adcock v. Oregon R. Co., 45 Ore. 173, 179 - 182, 77 P. 78, 80 (1904)(approving trial court's decision to grant a remittitur because the jury's damages award was excessive); see also Van Lom v. Schneiderman, 187 Ore. 89, 96 - 98, 112 - 113,210 P. 2d 461, 464, 471 (1949).

However, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned his conviction because the jury at his trial did not have any Aboriginal members.

On the eve of a major jury trial, on behalf of one of numerous defendants, we obtained an emergency stay of the trial from Pennsylvania Supreme Court because the Fair Share Act requires all co-defendants be tried at one time.

As America's most - cited judge, Judge Richard Posner, put it last year, «Judges have difficulty understanding modern technology and jurors have even greater difficulty, yet patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats -LSB-...]».

This technical distinction makes a difference at trial because the jury is not told there is insurance behind the case under Maryland's collateral source rule.

Not only this, but he would likely be labelled a hypocrite because he criticized the jury in Tom Robinson's trial for not giving him a fair trial, but judging him in the «secret court» of their hearts.

At Basta, we disrupted the system when we arrived because we started demanding jury trials in every case.

As discussed here in late March, convicted fraudster Allen Stanford recently asked, unsuccessfully, for a new trial because the court «let reporters send Twitter messages from the courtroom, even while the judge and lawyers were talking outside the jury's presence, and failed to instruct jurors to stay off Twitter.»

As the defendants had already admitted liability before the trial started, the judge had ruled this information was irrelevant and inadmissible because it «may unduly arouse the jury's emotions of prejudice, hostility, of sympathy.»

The citizen wasn't vindicated for defending himself, the decision was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the court erred by not allowing him to present a claim of self - defence to the jury

Is it within the bounds of the Constitution to punish individuals with higher sentences because they decide they want to use their constitutional right to a jury trial?

In this way, final jury instructions differ from preliminary instructions because final instructions are tailored to each trial, while preliminary instructions apply to the job jurors have in all trials.

These statements are seriously problematic because, as you also state, ethical behaviour of the jury «requires the juror to impartially and fairly assess the evidence respecting the law as set out by the trial judge».

The judicial nomination process has turned up some embarrassing news about 4th Circuit nominee E. Duncan Getchell: Back in 2004, a Virginia appeals court dismissed his appeal of an $ 8 million jury verdict because Getchell and his firm failed to file the trial transcript.

This was in itself untrue and the trial judge found it appropriate, because of comments of counsel, to discharge the jury and continued the trial as a judge alone proceeding.

The Sacks panel held that a trial judge should not use the word «necessary» in explaining the meaning of the but - for test to a jury, because all the but - for test requires is a «real and substantial connection» between the negligence and the injury.

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of abecause there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of aBecause the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

In the New Hampshire case, the Supreme Court found no error because the blogger's posts were not shared with his fellow jurors and because he assured the trial judge that he had followed his instructions once the jury was seated, as Molly McDonough reported in October in the ABA Journal eReport.

-- is R. v. W. (D.)[1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, a case on «charge to the jury,» likely because this is a particularly vulnerable moment in a criminal trial and it is hoped that by invoking the highest power all will be well.

The CA panel said there was (1) a miscarriage of justice and (2) they ordered the entry of an acquittal rather than a new trial because it was its view that any jury trying the cause would most likely acquit.

These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.

Often, when a verdict is rendered in lieu of a settlement, the losing party will have to pay out considerably more money than in a settlement — because trials are expensive, and costs for putting on the trial, paying for the judge, the court reporter, the jury members» per diem, the bailiff and others, can mean even more financial pain.

Each brother's trial resulted in a hung jury (i.e., no unanimous verdict was reached) because jurors would not abandon their opposing positions.

Our experienced lawyers have obtained numerous large settlements and jury verdicts in truck accidents because we review each law that applies, investigate all the facts, and prepare each case for a jury trial.

The appeals panel also ruled that Adwent's claim that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on contributory negligence also did not hold up because there was no reason to think doing so would have had any impact on the jury.

Allied then argued that a new trial was necessary, because the judge had bungled the jury instructions.

In his charge to the jury the trial judge told the jury to look especially carefully at the evidence of the defence witnesses, the appellant and the complainant because they were persons of unsavoury character.

The trial judge may instruct the jury that a dock statement is less cogent because it is unsworn and not tested by cross-examination.

Clifford Kokopenace, an Aboriginal man convicted of manslaughter, argued that he was denied the right to an independent and impartial trial by jury because of underrepresentation of Aboriginal people living on reserves in the jury rolls for the District of Kenora.

Taking a case completely to trial is often done in only the most egregious accident cases because it gives a sympathetic jury an opportunity to award punitive damages along with compensatory claims, especially when an accident involved a drunk driver or speeding driver or a commercial vehicle.