Sentences with phrase «key evidence against»

He shut the commission down even as it was developing key evidence against Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, the two leaders of the state Legislature — and it's obvious he did it at their request, in exchange for other concessions in Albany's endless bargaining.

Not exact matches

He tells The New York Times that the filmmakers took Avery's side in telling his story and failed to mention several key pieces of the state's evidence against Avery.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

The email evidence is considered key to the State Attorney General's case against the former Erie County Democratic chairman, and it was used to help obtain a 2016 indictment against Pigeon and others on corruption charges.

Once key members of the Maziarz team, Wojtaszek waived and Aronow and Winter received immunity when they testified last March before an Albany County grand jury weighing evidence in Schneiderman's case against the former senator.

New research in mice offers evidence that some of those bacteria — called Clostridia — provide key protection against infection, in addition to helping digest food.

The evidence against neonicotinoids now exists in key bee brain cells involved in learning and memory, in whole bees, entire colonies and now at the level of whole populations of wild bees.

«Governments have seemed unwilling to have a key school reform rigorously tested against the evidence, and too often the critics have also wanted to make their case without reference to the emerging data on how structural change is impacting on attainment and value added.

Ideal for justifying budget spending against outcomes for key stakeholders such as governors, or evidencing improvement plans for inspection bodies.

It makes the scientist weigh evidence against renown instead of relevance, and the framing of key questions against prudent self - preservation.

«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report — the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over the climate — were changed or deleted after the scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

To recap: Ross Gelbspan accuses a prominent skeptic scientist of being involved in a global warming «misinformation campaign», and he claims a key «leaked memo» phrase he supposedly found is the smoking gun evidence for his overall accusation against skeptic scientists.

For evidence of this see «GapMinder», and graph the key UN «Human Development Indexes» (HDI) against income per capita and energy consumption per capita, and run play each time to see changes through time.

The people who ask me such questions seem to think that the IPCC's increase in confidence is politically motivated, that the process requires a unidirectional progression of confidence in such a key area, and that this provides reason enough to account for the IPCC going against the mounting evidence.

«Despite assuring Congress that career military lawyers are helping design new trials for accused terrorists, the Bush administration has limited their input on their key request, that any tribunals must give detainees the right to see the evidence against them, officials said.»

The error pertains to a key piece of evidence that had been used against Oland: a brown Hugo Boss sports jacket.

At the conclusion of each investigation conducted by the SIU, the director prepares a report summarizing the key evidence relied upon in the decision to either lay criminal charges against a police office or to clear the officer of wrongdoing.

Thus, unless prosecutors can introduce some other corroborating evidence, it now looks as though the key question of what McQueary told Curley and Schultz about the shower incident will come down to McQueary's word against theirs.

(correct test for Barrister appeals; whether outside the ex improviso rule, prosecutor may call evidence after prosecution and defence case closed; use of debarring orders against prosecutor; whether tribunal may «enter the arena» and strongly request the attendance of a prosecution witness; whether BSB has power to summons witnesses; whether prosecutor may communicate with disciplinary judge behind the back of the defence; whether such communication redolent of actual bias of judge where judge wishes prosecutor good luck on appeal; whether apparent bias doctrine can be engaged by post-trial conduct of judge; legal effect of serving BSB prosecutions department officer being 1 of 4 appointing members of the COIC «Tribunals Appointments Body» (TAB); whether TAB ultra vires the Bar's Constitutions; whether open - ended power of removal of member of COIC pool without cause, unlawful given position of BSB Chair and senior staff on COIC; whether ECHR Article 6 guarantees against pressure on disciplinary judges to conform with a prosecutorial mentality; whether disciplinary judges Art. 6 «independent» within Findlay v United Kingdom given key role of BSB prosecutions department in appointing disciplinary judges; serious non-disclosure by BSB of notes of secret meeting between BSB and disciplinary judge until day before appeal and despite requests and application for disclosure by defence)

Defense attorneys warned against the change, saying the preliminary hearing helps winnow out weak cases and prompt plea bargaining when the state's evidence and key witnesses appear strong.

It is useful to quote key observations by Stadlen J [at paras 126 - 129]: «In my view, notwithstanding the absence in the FTPP proceedings of some of the statutory and non-statutory safeguards which apply to criminal proceedings... [I] n deciding whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence, the requirements both of Article 6 and of the common law obliged the FTPP to take into account the absence of all those [safeguards]... [I] n my judgment, no reasonable panel in the position of the FTPP could have reasonably concluded that there were factors outweighing the powerful factors pointing against the admission of the hearsay evidence... The means by which the claimant can challenge the hearsay evidence are... not in my judgment capable of outweighing those factors... The reality would appear to be that the factor which the FTPP considered decisive in favour of admitting the hearsay evidence was the serious nature of the allegations against the claimant coupled with the public interest in investigating such allegations and the FTPP's duty to protect the public interest in protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour... However, that factor on its own does not in my view diminish the weight which must be attached to the procedural safeguards to which a person accused of such allegations is entitled both at common law and under Article 6... The more serious the allegation, the greater the importance of ensuring that the accused doctor is afforded fair and proper procedural safeguards.