Sentences with phrase «jurors hear the evidence»

To recover damages for a claim under this statute, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in a deceptive or unfair business practice, which was so severe that it «rises to a level of rascality» which would «shock the conscience» of a judge or juror hearing evidence.

During the trial, jurors heard evidence that the Stephans used natural remedies and homemade smoothies containing hot pepper, ginger root, horseradish and onion rather than seek medical care.

In a criminal trial, 12 jurors hear the evidence and decide if the accused person is guilty or not guilty.

Not exact matches

Also Wednesday, jurors for the first time heard the voice of Venditto in the court proceeding when prosecutors entered as evidence an October 2016 video of him presiding over a town board meeting.

«You didn't hear any evidence that he held himself out to Mr. Aiello or to Mr. Gerardi as a guy who would be going back into government where he could sell his office to them for the money that he was earning as a consultant during the summer of 2014,» Bohrer told jurors in his closing arguments.

The source noted that picking a panel to weigh charges against Police Officer Peter Liang in the fatal shooting last November of Akai Gurley, 28, was difficult because the jurors were told they would be hearing evidence for two to three months.

Deliberations began Thursday for jurors who heard evidence against Joseph Percoco and three businessmen.

Before sending jurors home for the night, the judge, Valerie E. Caproni, gave the usual advice that they not read about or listen to news accounts regarding the case, but she added a caution that they should not make up their minds because they had not heard all of the evidence.

They want permission to seek a new trial on grounds that jurors should never have heard the prejudicial evidence, and they want to use McDonnell to respond to the government's sentencing arguments.

Suffice to say that the jurors who heard the expert testimony and examined all the evidence at Burzynski's trial are pretty persuasive when they call the FDA's case against him little more than a witch hunt.

In court, the press sat inside the bar, able to hear and report the whispering of jurors and lawyers, and able to scrutinize evidence before it was presented.

Alternatively, a juror might initially believe a celebrity is innocent (based on admiration), and, after hearing convincing evidence against the celebrity, change his opinion to a guilty verdict.

Judge Seated Juror Who Declared Defendant Guilty Before Trial Jose Felipe Velasco insists Orange County Judge David A. Hoffer cheated him out of a fair trial by placing a juror on the supposedly neutral citizen's panel after she repeatedly declared the defendant guilty before hearing any evidJuror Who Declared Defendant Guilty Before Trial Jose Felipe Velasco insists Orange County Judge David A. Hoffer cheated him out of a fair trial by placing a juror on the supposedly neutral citizen's panel after she repeatedly declared the defendant guilty before hearing any evidjuror on the supposedly neutral citizen's panel after she repeatedly declared the defendant guilty before hearing any evidence.

However, Georgia law does permit jurors to employ more than sight and hearing in assessing evidence, as demonstrated by cases from the prohibition era.

In both trials, the accused parents were found not guilty, albeit for different reasons, perhaps surpringsly so based on media accounts (but not apparently too surprising for the respective jurors who sat through weeks of testimony hearing all of the evidence).

Defence objections to the juror were rejected, the judge having heard representations from the prosecution that there was no material challenge to the officer's evidence.

The committee heard evidence from a juror in a trial that involved the murder of a young woman by her boyfriend.

The committee also heard from one of the jurors from the Paul Bernardo murder trial who testified that she has to watch «those girls being raped and tortured — wasn't just watching evidence; it was sitting in a box where I felt I couldn't do anything to save them.

Additionally, jurors are directed in the strongest of terms to focus solely on the evidence they hear within the court room and to discard any other information from their deliberations.

Also inadmissible is «heresay»; there are various circumstances where it is allowed to introduce as evidence testimony like «I heard Bob say that Lou bragged about murdering Sal», and a concept of «adoptive admission» which has the consequence that if you don't protest an accusation or wrongdoing, that is the same as confessing to doing it (jurors still have to decide if they believe it, but it is admissible).

People have raised the concern that a juror thinking up questions might be deciding the case before they hear all the evidence, and might give too much weight to the answers to their own questions (or read a lot into it if a question is denied).

Attorney John Ramsey commented, «This verdict resulted from 12 Harris County jurors hearing all of the evidence and determining that due to the negligence of the defendants, Mr. Moreno suffered serious personal injuries.

Crown attorney James Ross said later in the trial jurors will hear evidence from wiretaps of Cormier's home and from some of his associates.

2 For an extensive list of studies demonstrating the competence of juries, see, e.g., Testimony of Neil Vidmar, Russell M. Robinson, II Professor of Law, Duke Law School before The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, «Hearing on Medical Liability: New Ideas for Making the System Work Better for Patients,» June 22, 2006 at 10 («The overwhelming number of the judges gave the civil jury high marks for competence, diligence, and seriousness, even in complex cases... Systematic studies of jury responses to experts lead to the conclusion that jurors do not automatically defer to experts and that jurors have a basic understanding of the evidence in malpractice and other cases.

Nonetheless, most good openings avoid outright argument before the jurors have heard a shred of real, admissible evidence.