Sentences with phrase «judges and juries often»

When the plaintiff can convince the court of the defendant's liability, judges and juries often award considerable damages because of the crimes» egregious nature.

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.»

Most obvious is the discretion in sentencing where if a crime has a State penalty of 10 to 15 years and it's up to the judge or jury as to the actual sentence handed down then the intent of the crime is often debated and used in the decision.

Savino, throughout his time on the witness stand, often would direct his comments directly to the jury — and sometimes, in sweeping the courtroom with his eyes and with hand gestures, up toward the judge.

Many leaders lose effective teachers simply because they want to protect themselves from capricious, often inexperienced school leaders who are judge and jury.

I often act as a «teacher» to clearly convey the evidence which falls into my realm of expertise, based in science and fact, to assist the judge and / or jury in understanding the evidence at hand, in essence, act as an advocate for the truth.

Blatchford's style for many years has been incisive, descriptive, graphic, and often ruthless when she (more often than not) reaches the conclusion (usually well in advance of the trial judge or jury) that your client is a fiendish monster.

The amount of money that is awarded for these damages is usually determined by a jury, although a judge must often approve the final verdict, sometimes adding interest and attorney's fees to the total.

Lizer fakes blindness in order to garner sympathy with the judge and jury, often to the Bluth's detriment.

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.

Pictures of Sheppard, the judge, counsel, pertinent witnesses, and the jury often accompanied the daily newspaper

Between the early 1960s and late 1980s, the conviction rates for judge and jury was roughly the same; the 20 years before that, judges actually convicted much more often than juries.

However, it is not uncommon in our justice system for juries to be instructed to ignore evidence ruled to be inadmissible and judges often hear evidence that they may then have to ignore because of privileges and other rules of evidence.

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.

Unfortunately, although a jury might often present a higher chance of acquittal than the judge - trial option, if the jury convicts, it will recommend the sentence without the benefit of knowing the voluntary sentencing guidelines, reading a presentence report, nor being permitted to recommend a suspended sentence, a probation period, nor community service nor counseling in place of active jail and a recommended fine amount.

On top of that, motorcyclists must often overcome the unfair preconception held by judges, juries and insurers that bikers are reckless and careless drivers.

This varies from case to case and is often left up to the decision of a jury or judge.

Practically speaking, most often judges and juries will tally economic damages and then decide the non-economic damages as a multiple (two times, three times) of that amount.

According to a study released by the Brennan Center for Justice, trial judges in Alabama override jury verdicts sentencing criminal defendants to life and instead impose death sentences more often in election years.

Judges, lawyers, juries and clients often deviate from their norm.

The American criminal justice system is far from being sufficiently enlightened, starting by too many presumed - innocent people caged without bond pending sentencing, moving to Virginia's crabbed criminal discovery system, continuing to Virginia's system that allows prosecutors to scare defendants to plead guilty by their refusal to waive a jury that in many instances and locations can mean more racist jurors than judges on top of the jurors often being more wild cards than judges for sentencing, continuing to the many judges who choose judicial efficiency over a fair trial, continuing to the brutal capital punishment system, cntinuing to excessive mandatory minimum and guideline sentencing, and continuing to the slew of innocent convicted people (many of whom plead gulilty rather than risking a worse fate), and continuing to frequently excessive sentences and excessive probation violation sentences.

Pain and suffering can not be precisely calculated therefore a judge will most often leave this calculation up to the jury's common sense.

In ICBC injury claims judges and juries are often asked to pick between competing medical opinion evidence.

And, because we try so many cases, we have mastered the art of explaining these often complex technologies to judges and juries that do not have technical backgrounAnd, because we try so many cases, we have mastered the art of explaining these often complex technologies to judges and juries that do not have technical backgrounand juries that do not have technical backgrounds.

Therefore, the majority opinion left open the possibility that many future defendants could short - circuit cases by proving no duty existed to a judge - an often easier and by far much less expensive task than proving no proximate causation existed to a jury.

Antitrust: Our work in antitrust often involves making complicated economic principles make sense to judge and jury.

And what the outcome in the case is will often depend on what view the jury takes of the eye - witness evidence (i.e. which of the eye - witnesses it believes), and hence may have nothing to do with anything the Judge saAnd what the outcome in the case is will often depend on what view the jury takes of the eye - witness evidence (i.e. which of the eye - witnesses it believes), and hence may have nothing to do with anything the Judge saand hence may have nothing to do with anything the Judge says.

But the Judge is often only setting out legal alternatives: he is telling the jury what the prosecutor must prove, since certain differences do exist between - for instance - what amounts to murder, and what does not but might nevertheless amount to manslaughter (in the USA, termed 2nd - degree murder).