Sentences with phrase «jury than a judge»

Everyone speeds a little and you are far more likely to be acquitted by a jury than a judge.

Not exact matches

Mediation is a non-adversarial alternative to divorce litigation wherein the parties work together, with the help of a neutral third party «mediator,» to determine their own outcome, rather than leaving these important decisions to judge or jury.

«There's more than sufficient evidence for this case to go to the jury on all counts,» U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack said.

On Thursday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Joan M. Azrack spent more than two hours giving instructions to the jury, reading aloud from 54 pages explaining the law and how jurors should go about considering each charge the defendants face.

A judge who since Sheldon Silver's arrest has come under scrutiny for the sky - high damages that juries in her court have awarded to Weitz & Luxenberg clients recently slashed a record $ 190 million asbestos - poisoning payout to less than $ 30 million.

The state Court of Appeals in a ruling Thursday found judges will now be required to instruct juries that witness identifications of suspects of a different race is less reliable than when people make IDs from their own race.

Our correspondent reported a jury would be constituted to hear the murder case, noting the judge indicated it should not have less than seven people.

The state's top court ruled that judges will now be required — when asked — to instruct juries that witness identifications of suspects from a different race is less reliable than when people make IDs from their own race.

But White Plains federal Judge Kenneth Karas said such evidence would confuse the jury because, if true, it's a «completely different scheme» than for what Smith will be on trial beginning Jan. 5 when he faces corruption charges for allegedly trying to buy his way onto the Republican line for mayor last year.

The judge added that Bashir failed to clear the accuracy of the transcript with prosecutors before asking that it be admitted and that Gonzalez's taped conversation would be more «prejudicial» than «probative» if presented to the jury.

But rather than appealing the judge's decision, Johnson decided to present the case to another grand jury — a move the Graham family supported.

Mychal Bell, 17, the first of the classmates to go on trial, was quickly convicted in a kangaroo court by an all - white jury presided over by a white judge in less than three hours.

None on the international jury of this year's festival, which included Frances McDormand, Bent Hamer, and Alex de la Iglesia, seems ready to retire, and I can think of worse tasks than judging films in the elegant Basque city of San Sebastián, known as Donostia to the locals.

The Critic's Week sidebar, which runs separately but concurrently to the main festival, features films from China, Vietnam, Iran, Palestine, France, Italy, Germany, and Serbia, with nine films in total being judged by festival - goers, rather than a jury.

DETROIT - General Motors will ask consumers to serve as judge and jury over nine vehicles that are scheduled to be unveiled on the 2000 auto - show circuit starting in January.The automaker believes that it is far better - and certainly less costly - to have the public give a thumbs down to a concept car than a production model.

There's more than one way to «divide up» publishing; I prefer something that's a little easier to explain to judges and juries.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

Among more than 130 visual artists, the festival will host 13 exhibits, including an art in action stage, an artist demo row, and the Greenville County high school juried exhibition, which will be judged by two Furman faculty members.

No judge but Sir Nicholas Serota has been allowed to serve more than once on the Turner prize jury; Serota serves on every single one.

Given a choice of imperfections, I'd rather be judged by a federal grand jury than by a self - selected bunch of academics.

I'm no legal expert, but during jury duty the judge instructed us «preponderance of evidence» meant, «more likely than not.»

Despite this fundamental right, civil jury trials are much more rare than trials conducted by judge alone.

Also, the judge is within his rights to punish the potential juror if he determines that the potential juror is actually lying about his ability to be impartial in an effort to evade jury service rather than because he sincerely believes that he can't be fair, and judges have wide authority to determine the credibility and truthfulness of statements made to him in open court (i.e. if the trial judge finds that you are lying, this determination will almost always be honored by an appellate court considering the judge's actions).

In B.C., he noted, jury awards for non-pecuniary damages are much lower than from those of judges alone who are informed with all the anchoring bias of past judgments.

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.

If you were wearing dress shoes rather than well - soled winter boots, then the likelihood is that a judge or jury may well feel that you have contributed to your own injury to some extent.

12Judicial deference to jury verdicts may have been stronger in 18thcentury America than in England, and judges» power to order new trials for excessive damages more contested.

Aaron, I think that the majority opinion expressly rejects Judge Young's logic in the Griffith opinion: It is acceptable for «the sentencing judge [to] impos [e] a sentence higher than the Guidelines provide for the jury - determined facts standing alone.&rJudge Young's logic in the Griffith opinion: It is acceptable for «the sentencing judge [to] impos [e] a sentence higher than the Guidelines provide for the jury - determined facts standing alone.&rjudge [to] impos [e] a sentence higher than the Guidelines provide for the jury - determined facts standing alone.»

There could be no greater intrusion on traditional state authority than federal tort reforms that tie the hands of local judges and juries.

I didn't disagree with the 2012 jury's verdict (apart from validity and the fact that I would have actually seen a stronger design patent case in connection with tablets than with smartphones, as Judge Koh did in her preliminary injunction decision as well) nearly as much as with its approach.

· States Rights: There could be no greater intrusion on traditional state authority than federal tort reforms that tie the hands of local judges and juries.

He has developed a unique Risk Management approach to mediation which recognizes the benefit to the parties of retaining control over the dispute resolution process, rather than exposing themselves to the uncertainty of having strangers (arbitrators, Judges or a Jury) decide their fate.

Plaintiffs prevailed more frequently in judge trials than in jury tort trials.

You have a judge trial that lasts 30 minutes against someone who is not represented — the perception is different than if you're doing a five - day jury trial which is hotly contested, with the regular rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure.

Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which made clear that making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

However, while a jury would be required to be unanimous in its recommendation, I don't see anything that would bind a judge to impose a sentence no harsher than that recommended by the jury.

Diverse representation infuses the composition and purpose of juries and the principle of being judged by equals rather than lords.

But, in essence, the judge found that he was really just trying to get out of jury duty, rather than trying to obstruct justice.

Unless the judge as factfinder or jury clearly shows that they are ready for the criminal defendant lawyer to let the obstructionist witness have it — which usually will not happen with any witness other than an opposing expert puffing out his or her obstructionist and obfuscating chest at all times — the judge and jury may well punish the overbearing cross examining criminal lawyer, in one way or another.

My understanding of American law is that no defamation occurs if the «sting» of the actual facts (as found by the judge or jury) is greater than the sting of the false allegations.

Judges and juries in courts are «generalists» who are less subject to institutional capture than arbitrators (especially specialist arbitrators).

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.

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.

On your more general point (realism of court - room dramas) the most striking difference between TV and real life (from my single experience) was that the entire court process was far more geared around the jury than is (usually) depicted on TV: witnesses are directed to talk TO the jury (not to the barristers or judge); we were encouraged to indicate to the judge if at any time we were uncertain, or «uncomfortable» for any reason (e.g. because of the nature of the evidence, or simply if we needed the toilet).

No matter how good you are on your feet (I'm looking at you, litigators), talking with a reporter is different than talking with a judge or jury.

And it's not the VSAs «fault» that the judge or jury were convinced the VSA's skills rather than the NASA or MCA's skills.

At her She Negotiates blog, Victoria Pynchon makes the argument in a recent post that although there is greater diversity among judges and juries these days, this diversity is less significant than it might appear because key Supreme Court decisions have had the effect of steering disputes out of court and into private arbitrations.

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.

Indeed, the status of this topic as free speech that is supposed to be guaranteed under the First Amendment has been upheld by courts more than once: ● in Florida, where a judge affirmed that handing out FIJA brochures regarding jury nullification is legal based on principles of free speech ● in New York, where a federal judge dismissed false jury tampering charges against someone handing out brochures that advocated jury nullification ● in Colorado, where a judge dismissed false jury tampering charges against two people handing out FIJA's educational material on jury nullification

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.