Sentences with phrase «judge in a criminal trial»

We understand the ethical duties of lawyers and judges in a criminal trial — what they ought to do, what their office requires of them.

A judge in a criminal trial can prohibit the publication of a question - and - answer exchange that took place in open court when it should have occurred in camera.

Not exact matches

The Post's Spencer Hsu: «The federal judge overseeing the criminal trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and business partner Rick Gates imposed a gag order in the case Wednesday, ordering all parties, including potential witnesses, not to make statements that might prejudice jurors.

The federal judge overseeing the criminal trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and business partner Rick Gates imposed a gag order in the case Wednesday, ordering all parties, including potential witnesses, not to make statements that might prejudice jurors.

That suit is expected to go to trial in the fall, and the judge in the case recently recommended that federal officials look into whether criminal charges should be filed.

This would mean, for instance, that participants in an economic transaction are bound to halt their activity whenever any one of them or any affected individual objects to it, or a criminal court judge is bound to halt the trial's proceedings if the accused dissents from a specific rule of the judicial system.

Gianluigi Nuzzi and fellow journalist Emiliano Fittipaldi went on trial before three judges in the Vatican criminal court.

Updated 3:26 p.m. The criminal assault trial of Kevin S. Parker, a state senator from central Brooklyn, was thrown into turmoil on Thursday, as a judge granted the Brooklyn district attorney's office's request to have two special prosecutors appointed — one who would take over the case, and another who would investigate possible improprieties by an assistant district attorney not directly involved in the proceeding.

Judge Pamela K. Chen of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn ordered a postponement of the Republican congress member's criminal trial until Feb..

Judge Pamela K. Chen of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn ordered a postponement of the Republican congress member's criminal trial until Feb. 2 to give his defense team time to examine evidence gathered by the prosecution, including tape recorded conversations with potential witnesses.

***** The PM's been sent to the naughty corner by a crown court judge this week after a moment of legal lunacy in which he commented on the criminal trial involving celebrity chef Nigella Lawson.

That leaves Judge David Zuckerman as the only judge that presides over criminal jury trials in RockJudge David Zuckerman as the only judge that presides over criminal jury trials in Rockjudge that presides over criminal jury trials in Rockland.

In an unusual move designed to make criminal trials fairer, state Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore issued a new rule requiring judges to forcefully order prosecutors to search their files and disclose all evidence favorable to the defense at least 30 days before major trials.

Citing Section 36 (4) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 98 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, Offiong further argued that «the CJ has exceeded his powers in transferring the case from one trial judge to another after witnesses had been called.»

For the years before being elevated to the federal bench in 2015, Donnelly served as a state judge in New York, presiding over many criminal trials.

In the course of his trial, Lamido had through his counsel, Offiong Offiong, SAN told the court that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, in transferring the criminal matter from Justice Adeniyi Ademola to Justice Quadri, had exceeded his powerIn the course of his trial, Lamido had through his counsel, Offiong Offiong, SAN told the court that the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, in transferring the criminal matter from Justice Adeniyi Ademola to Justice Quadri, had exceeded his powerin transferring the criminal matter from Justice Adeniyi Ademola to Justice Quadri, had exceeded his powers.

But the culture of criminal justice would also have to shift — among lawyers, judges and district attorneys — to ensure that fewer New Yorkers languish in city jails awaiting trial, experts said.

The Judge further said that it is a settled law that where doubts arise in a criminal trial, such doubts must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

As William Young, then chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Boston observed in a 2004 opinion: «The focus of our entire criminal justice system has shifted away from trials and juries and adjudication to a massive system of sentence bargaining that is heavily rigged against the accused.»

Courts regularly rely on scientific expert testimony, involving for example DNA evidence in criminal trials, where judges and juries have no competence in the subject matter.

Constitutional law: The trial judges in these criminal cases appointed amicus curiae to make sure the cases would be fair and efficient.

As Aikens LJ went on to explain, the intentional tort committed by Mr Marsh, having been at home, off - duty and drunk, and having declined the offer to come in, was obviously not at all connected with his employment: the description by the trial judge of being the «spontaneous criminal act of a drunken man who was off duty» was «both graphic and accurate».

The Crown should ask the trial judge to reconsider the Corbett ruling so that the jury (or trial judge in a judge - alone trial) gets a fair and complete picture.209 Similarly, in a jury case, a defence strategy centred on an attack on the credibility of the victim can affect an accused's successful Corbett application, potentially opening up his or her entire criminal record to cross-examination for credibility purposes.210

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear five appeals this week, including three criminal cases involving driving «over 80» and production of evidence; an unjust enrichment claim; and an appeal in a sexual assault case in which the Court of Appeal of Alberta had found that a trial judge had erred by relying on a stereotype about the behaviour of sexual assault victims.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resuTrial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resutrial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resutrial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resuTrial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public iCriminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public iCriminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public icriminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.

Andy Levy is widely regarded as one of Maryland's premier trial and appellate lawyers, equally comfortable in civil and criminal courtrooms, before jury, judge, or arbitrator.

Though the Criminal Code does not provide a list of mitigating factors to be used in determining a fair sentence in a criminal trial, judge made case law has established a list of mitigating factors that the courts may use to determine a fair sentence in a particulCriminal Code does not provide a list of mitigating factors to be used in determining a fair sentence in a criminal trial, judge made case law has established a list of mitigating factors that the courts may use to determine a fair sentence in a particulcriminal trial, judge made case law has established a list of mitigating factors that the courts may use to determine a fair sentence in a particular case.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was remote.

With respect to judicial interpretation, therefore, while the national legal traditions on which the articles and rules in question are modeled can provide some guidance, over-reliance on a narrow inquiry can lead to the perpetuation of the default position, according to which, as Byrne («The new public international lawyer and the hidden art of international criminal trial practice», 25 Connecticut Journal of Int» l Law (2005) 243) notes, some international judges «interpret legal norms through the lexicons of their respective traditions», rather than through a truly sui generis prism.

The proceedings and what evidence is allowed in your trial will be governed by the judge, and your criminal defense lawyer will be fighting continually for you during this highly technical and difficult time.

The Argersinger rule also tends to impair the proper functioning of the criminal justice system in that trial judges, in advance of hearing any evidence and before knowing anything about the case except the charge, all too often will be compelled to forgo the legislatively granted option to impose a sentence of imprisonment upon conviction.

From a speeding violation that lands you in Municipal Court to a felony criminal trial in front of a judge and jury — Fienman Defense protects your rights by covering cases throughout the Pennsylvania criminal justice system.

There have been situations in which Ontario judges have halted cases involving serious criminal charges because they have taken too long to get to trial, however, this is not always the case.

The incident started back in December 2006, when a trial judge remarked, on the record, during a criminal sentencing proceeding, «You can't offend the kangaroos up there in kangaroo court.»

Concluding the two trustees were «unable to work together in any reasonable and effective way,» Justice D.M. Brown said the competing sides «can not reasonably expect that unlimited judicial resources are available to devote to their internecine quarrels,» adding (with apparent frustration)(i) that the Commercial List in Toronto is «chronically short of judges,» (ii) that the «scheduling of criminal trials -LSB-...] has become particularly problematic» because it is «manifestly under resourced» and (iii) that «dates for one day civil motions are now being given out 8 to 9 months down the road.»

«Instead of carefully reviewing the evidence in the case in order to determine whether or not the Crown had, in fact, established that the appellant possessed the specific intent of wilfulness required by s. 173 (1) of the Criminal Code, the trial judge erroneously convicted the appellant based upon a perceived (but non-existent) legal presumption that the necessary wilfulness was established by the fact that his acts of masturbation were in fact witnessed by another,» he wrote.

If you're going to become a judge advocate, I'd recommend you make it known early and often that you want to practice in your service's appellate division — but so you're worth the billet, I'd cut your trial teeth first, read widely in criminal law, and hone your writing skills.

In Commonwealth v. Ora, the SJC reversed the trial court judge, who found that the criminal statute's «blanket prohibition against public nudity» (pun intended?)

A military judge is always appointed to each court martial, but some courts martial also include a panel, which is roughly the equivalent of a jury in civilan criminal trials (but not the same).

While leaving detailed practical guidance for employees to the actual prosecuting agencies, the court expressed the expectation that future difficulties should be avoided by early disclosure from jurors of their relevant professional involvement with the criminal justice system, and careful enquiry by the trial judge as to the significance of this in each case.

The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in his consideration and application of s. 150.1 (4) of the Criminal Code, which states that it is not a defence for an accused to say they believed a complainant was 16 years of age or older when the sexual acts occurred.

This is reflected in the NSW Supreme Court's Criminal Trials Bench Book (essentially a crib sheet for judges):

Formerly a Judge Pro Tem for the Maricopa County Superior Court, Mr. Whiteman is experienced in a wide range of trial court matters, including white - collar and other criminal law matters.

The dissent does note the rates of compensation set by the trial judges in each of the three cases: $ 200 per hour (para 103), $ 250 per hour for very senior counsel (para 104), and $ 192 per hour, which the trial judge noted was the rate that would be paid by the Attorney General to a lawyer of the amicus's year of call to prosecute or to represent the interests of a witness in a criminal case» (para 99).

In your first few years as a Judge Advocate, you might be fully lititgating a criminal trial (a.k.a court martial), defending the U.S. Government against a taxpayer whose house got damaged by falling aircraft parts, or briefing troops on «shoot / don't shoot rules of engagement» and laws of armed conflict.

Criminal Law: Provocation R. v. Bouchard, 2013 ONCA 791 (35690) Judgment rendered Oct. 16, 2014 Cromwell J. — «We agree with [the] majority of [the C.A.], that the trial judge's instructions may well have led the jury to understand that the deceased's allegedly provocative acts and the respondent's reaction to them had relevance to the mens rea issue only if they met the narrow legal definition of provocation in s. 232 of the Criminal Code and that this constituted misdirection».

The trial judge in Askov noted the systemic underfunding of the criminal justice system — that was three decades ago — but nothing changed.

[1] The issues in this appeal are whether the trial judge's reasons for judgment were sufficient and whether the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof in a criminal case.

«If the decisions below stand,» he writes, «Canadians may regrettably conclude that it is the state — in this case, through its statutory agent the Law Society of Upper Canada — and not the trial judge [that] has the final say on how a criminal or civil trial is conducted.»