Sentences with phrase «jury against the defendant»

The lawyers expect that the photographs will help to turn the jury against the defendant, and a growing body of research supports this view.

Evidence of simply being issued a ticket prejudices the jury against the defendant.

Not exact matches

NEW YORK — What do you do if you're one of the most criticized defendants in the nation awaiting a jury verdict on the criminal fraud and conspiracy charges filed against you?

If a jury decides that the prosecution has manufactured evidence against a defendant, are they entitled to find a defendant not guilty, even if they think that the defendant committed the crime they...

A jury assessing evidence against a defendant, a CEO evaluating information about a company or a scientist weighing data in favor of a theory will undergo the same cognitive process.

We, the Jury, now find for the Plaintiff, [Sienkowski], and find against the Defendant, [Verschuure], in the sum of:

When defendants are high profile clients or corporations, juries tend to go for higher punitive damages in an effort to cripple further medical or financial fraud against the general population.

Jury instructions typically leave the jury with wide discretion in choosing amounts, and the presentation of evidence of a defendant's net worth creates the potential that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big businesses, particularly those without strong local presenJury instructions typically leave the jury with wide discretion in choosing amounts, and the presentation of evidence of a defendant's net worth creates the potential that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big businesses, particularly those without strong local presenjury with wide discretion in choosing amounts, and the presentation of evidence of a defendant's net worth creates the potential that juries will use their verdicts to express biases against big businesses, particularly those without strong local presences.

Thomas remains the only defendant sued by the Recording Industry Association of America to take her case to trial, resulting in a jury verdict against her of $ 222,000.

Foley Hoag partner Michael Keating led a team that won a defendants» verdict from a Boston jury, which found that law firm Ropes & Gray LLP did not retaliate against former associate John Ray III for claiming he was a victim of racial discrimination.

Jury Trial for compensatory and punitive damages, ICBC v. Finley and Finley, BC Supreme Court, 2003 unreported — awards in excess of $ 2.5 million dollars against each defendant

Jury Trial for compensatory and punitive damages, ICBC v. Sun and others, BC Supreme Court, 2003 unreported — awards in excess of $ 640,000 against numerous defendants

In order for a jury to award punitive damages against a defendant, the plaintiff must properly allege such damages throughout the case.

HELD The judge could remind the jury that the defendant had no previous convictions and say that, in the ordinary case, where there was no evidence of bad character, a defendant of no previous convictions would have been entitled to a direction that the jury should consider that that counted in his favour on the questions of both propensity and credibility; as it was, it was for the jury to consider which counted with them more — the absence of previous convictions or the evidence of bad character; and if the former, then they should take that into account in favour of the defendant, and if the latter, then they would be entitled to take that into account against him (Lord Justice Rix at para 43).

«The term jury nullification refers to that rare situation where a jury knowingly chooses not to apply the law and acquits a defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against him.

I invested in my counsel (Richard Dearden and his team at Gowlings), the courts and a jury of strangers, to draw a bright line against the statements made by the Defendant.

Reasons included (1) judges «grade on a curve» and, after sitting through 20 cases involving violent crimes, might not find a more minor crime as serious whereas a jury would not share this context; (2) defendants will select those judges who they believe will be more inclined to acquit; (3) judges are bound by fixed sentencing rules so rather than sentence a defendant of a nonserious crime to a lengthy term they avoid that dilemma through acquittal; (4) judges might better understand the complex elements of certain corporate crimes and, unlike a jury, would recognize when the prosecution failed to carry its burden and (5) some judges may just have something against prosecutors.

As The Times explains, Paterno was not subject to cross-examination in the grand jury proceeding, and using that testimony would therefore violate the Sixth Amendment, which ensures a criminal defendant's right «to be confronted with the witnesses against him.»

Obtained a multi-million dollar jury verdict for actual and exemplary damages on behalf of a plaintiff manufacturing company against defendants that interfered with the company's proposed lending transactions.

It is against public policy for a defendant to be acquitted of a charged offense or convicted of a lesser included offense based upon an appeal to the societal bias that may be possessed by members of a jury.

Represented public works contractor claiming unpaid retention, change order work, and fraud against school district and individual defendant, and defended contractor against breach of contract and false claims by district in three - week California state court jury trial.

It is said that, under the form of writ used in this case, the defendant in the prosecution which might follow an indictment by the grand jury would not be apprised of the name of the precise witness who might have appeared against him, and § 829 of the Revised Statutes and the Sixth Amendment of the Federal Constitution are invoked.

However, in some cases, juries and courts can award what are called «punitive damages,» which are designed to punish defendants who have behaved recklessly or intentionally against the public's interest.

But the authors find that the reversal rate in favor of defendants and against juries is much higher in state courts.

Defendants argue that this court should strike the two sentencing allegations for three reasons: 1) The allegations are prejudicial surplusage; 2) The government does not have statutory authority to include sentencing allegations in an indictment; and 3) Presenting sentencing allegations to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to increase defendants» sentences violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against the legislative branch delegating its powers to the executiDefendants argue that this court should strike the two sentencing allegations for three reasons: 1) The allegations are prejudicial surplusage; 2) The government does not have statutory authority to include sentencing allegations in an indictment; and 3) Presenting sentencing allegations to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to increase defendants» sentences violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against the legislative branch delegating its powers to the executidefendants» sentences violates the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the prohibition against the legislative branch delegating its powers to the executive branch.

Representation of city in post-judgment motions and appeal of whistle blower case where the jury awarded Plaintiffs $ 27 million in actual and punitive damages against three Defendants who allegedly retaliated against Plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment rights and whistle blowing.

One of his cases still holds the record for a UK jury award of defamation damages against an insured defendant.

In a recent Texas auto accident decision, a woman appealed from a take nothing judgment after a jury trial in her personal injury lawsuit against a defendant, claiming injuries when the defendant's vehicle hit hers from behind.

After you file a lawsuit against the defendants, then you must present convincing evidence to a jury that they were negligent.

A Richmond Circuit Court sets aside a $ 250,000 jury award for plaintiff in her suit against defendant Chesterfield County police officer on a claim of malicious prosecution; applying a 2011 Virginia Supreme Court case, the court says defendant officer investigated...

Against defendant landlord manager, the jury awarded $ 2,153.03 against manager on the negligent claim, but found for her on the remaining claims which survived a nonsuit motion (with the jury finding for the defense on the statutory ordinance eviction claim asserted by plainAgainst defendant landlord manager, the jury awarded $ 2,153.03 against manager on the negligent claim, but found for her on the remaining claims which survived a nonsuit motion (with the jury finding for the defense on the statutory ordinance eviction claim asserted by plainagainst manager on the negligent claim, but found for her on the remaining claims which survived a nonsuit motion (with the jury finding for the defense on the statutory ordinance eviction claim asserted by plaintiffs).

The most promising explanations for that advantage are the defendant's superior resources, the social standing of physicians, social norms against «profiting» from an injury, and the jury's willingness to give physicians the «benefit of the doubt» when the evidence of negligence is conflicting.»)

An important tool in winning these cases is the ability of a trial judge and jury to draw an adverse inference against the defendant doctors, nurses and hospitals.

Thus, in Oscanyan v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261, it was held that, where it was shown by the opening statement of counsel that the contract on which the suit was brought was void as being either in violation of law or against public policy, the trial court might properly direct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant.