In the case of water on the floor, there are many variables that might lead a judge or
a majority of jurors to conclude a policyholder was negligent or not.
In either Vermont state or federal court, the parties may stipulate that the jury shall consist of any number less than twelve or that a verdict of
a majority of jurors shall be taken as the verdict.
But this strategy does not help with
the majority of jurors, who would prefer to be taught visually, at least in part.
In the case of water on the floor, there are many variables that might lead a judge or
a majority of jurors to conclude a policyholder was negligent or not.
«In a few states, like Florida, it only takes
a majority of jurors to sentence someone to death.
Not exact matches
But one
juror questions the assumptions
of the
majority.
Former state Senate
Majority Leader Dean Skelos and his son, Adam, fear that
jurors will smell the «stink»
of corruption if federal prosecutors get to play a secretly recorded conversation...
The corruption trial
of former Senate
Majority Leader Dean Skelos and his son, Adam, came to a halt late this afternoon after one
juror complained
of chest pains.
During closing arguments in the corruption trial against state Sen. Dean Skelos and his son, Adam, a lawyer for the younger Skelos told
jurors that the government's case against the former
majority leader relies on burdening the jury with heaps
of emails, phone calls and witness testimony to distract
jurors from the lack
of a supposed smoking gun.
«The unfortunate result
of these limitations is that United States District Courts have access to fewer persons potentially qualified to serve as
jurors,» wrote the bill's sponsor, Assembly
Majority Leader Joseph Morelle, D - Irondequoit.
During wiretapped phone calls played for the
jurors Monday in the corruption trial against former Senate
majority leader Dean Skelos and his son, Adam, the younger Skelos told lobbyists he was working with during a Dec. 12, 2014 phone call that Zucker had been personally visiting members
of the Republican Senate asking if there would be any «blowback» if the state approved fracking.
While the
jurors» perceptions and the attorneys» presentation skills discussed in this article affect how the evidence is presented and received, I think that most practitioners will agree that the vast
majority of juries weigh the evidence fairly: They are able to see the forest for the trees and provide both the judicial system and the parties a truly fair and reasonable arbiter.
In June 1966, writing for an 8 - 1
majority, Justice Tom Clark detailed the barrage
of «virulent and incriminating» media coverage
of the Sheppard investigation and excoriated the failure
of the trial court to control media access to
jurors.
In its 5 - 4 decision in Philip Morris v. Mayola Williams, Justice Breyer, writing for the
majority, held that the jury's verdict violated the Due Process clause
of the Constitution because
jurors had been permitted to consider harm suffered by other smokers, who weren't parties to the case, in assessing punitive damages.
Lord Bingham maintained that while Parliament could not have intended that CPS lawyers should sit as
jurors on cases brought by their own authority (even though Parliament chose not to state this expressly) there would be no objection to their sitting on cases prosecuted by other agencies — leaving CPS lawyers in the seemingly unique position
of being theoretically eligible for jury service but in practice barred from sitting on the vast
majority of cases brought in England and Wales, which is hardly a satisfactory state
of affairs.
On any summonsed panel
of jurors the vast
majority will be carrying cell phones, many will be thumb typists with iPhones or Blackberries, and many will have been subjected to some form
of PowerPoint abuse in their working lives.
The vast
majority of states outside
of the commonwealth permit a process whereby the judge and the attorneys inquire
of potential
jurors regarding their attitudes and beliefs on issues involved in the case.
While a
majority of respondents found it unacceptable for lawyers, judges, and
jurors to post updates about proceedings (by posting «status updates», «tweeting», blogging, etc) on online social networks while a matter is pending before the courts strictly for informational purposes, the
majority deemed the conduct acceptable for journalists.
The vast
majority of respondents from jurisdictions comprising a jury system found it unacceptable for
jurors to post comments or opinions about the judges, lawyers, parties, and / or cases which they are observing on online social networking sites.