Sentences with phrase «jury of reasonable people»

Not exact matches

Court of Appeal finds government did not make reasonable efforts to include Aboriginal persons in jury rolls.

Police psychologically need to believe that since the defendant gets a jury trial, and the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, convictions of innocent people are rare.

Then, the prosecutor has to convince a jury of average citizens that the person in question here committed the crime he is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The law and juries may then consider that person contributorily negligent by not using a reasonable standard of care by failing to wear a helmet.

The majority of the Supreme Court found that Ontario made reasonable efforts to ensure that Aboriginal people on reserve were included in the jury roll, even though the province's efforts to increase Aboriginal participation and assemble a representative jury roll were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that in - person attendance was not an essential function of her job for the ten - week period she requested to work from home, the court said.

The determination of whether a given person has met the «ordinary reasonable person» standard is often a matter that is resolved by a jury after presentation of evidence and argument at trial.

As Scalia put it in Rita, ``... there will inevitably be some constitutional violations under a system of» [beyond a reasonable doubt because some judges are smarter than some juries and when that happens our balance of powers as exercised by the people can go take a dump].

The reasonable person is a fictive member of the community — an amalgamation of community standards — whose judgment a jury is told to apply.

If this is just an ordinary - person on ordinary - person interaction, then the parties (both parties) are expected to exhibit the degree of caution that a «reasonable person» would exhibit (attempts to pin down what a «reasonable person» would do have proven impossible, though juries always know subjectively what a reasonable person would do).

I know that you can be accused of both first degree and second degree murder for killing the same person, but I thought the jury would have to pick the strongest accusation that they believe is proven beyond reasonable doubt (or declare the accused not guilty), so for each killing the outcome would be exactly one of «first degree murder», «second degree murder», and «not guilty» — not a double conviction for the same crime.

The test of dishonesty for a jury was the well - established test articulated by Lord Lane in R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689, namely whether a jury would consider the conduct in question as dishonest «according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people»; and, if so, whether the proposed defendant «must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest».