Sentences with phrase «most judges and juries»

Most judges and juries are not persuaded by neurobiological evidence used to argue that a defendant was not fully responsible for his or her actions, as in Gunther's case, the analysis found.

Not exact matches

One of the most inspiring parts of the day was during judging of the student awards, when the jury called in the top contenders — students from Brigham Young University in Utah and Filmakademie Baden - Wurttemberg in Germany.

Most of the actual heresy trials, without judge and jury, were about matters of personal morals.

John Kennedy repeatedly appointed segregationist judges to the federal bench in the South, and the civil rights case that Robert Kennedy most vigorously prosecuted involved charges brought against Albany, Georgia, activists for violating the rights of a white storeowner by boycotting his business because he had served on a jury that cleared the sheriff who had shot a black man three times in the neck at point - blank range.

Most obvious is the discretion in sentencing where if a crime has a State penalty of 10 to 15 years and it's up to the judge or jury as to the actual sentence handed down then the intent of the crime is often debated and used in the decision.

Absolutely, it does make sense to at least 6 billion people on earth including but not limited to professionals and the elite such as Doctors, Scientists, Juries, Judges, Magistrates, Politicians, even by the person who holds the highest position of the most powerful country of the world.

The judge in the case noted that Silver took a «number of official acts — most obviously passing legislation and approving state grants and tax - exempt financing — as part of a quid pro quo, but there remained a «substantial question» on whether the court's jury instructions were valid in light of the McDonnell ruling.

«Here, we've shown that facial biases unfortunately leak into what should be the most reflective and careful decision that juries and judges can make — whether to execute someone.»

Opening in September: Kirsten Dunst and Isla Fisher take a turn in the comic bridesmaid well in «Bachelorette» (Friday); Bradley Cooper is an author whose stolen work becomes a hit in «The Words» (Friday), a thriller co-starring Jeremy Irons and Dennis Quaid (see story on Page 17); Pixar adds another dimension to one of its most popular films in «Finding Nemo 3 - D» (Sept. 14); Milla Jovovich returns for one more zombie slaughter in «Resident Evil: Retribution» (Sept. 14); Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña are Los Angeles cops in «End of Watch» (Sept. 21), which aims for a realistic look at inner - city law enforcement; Elizabeth Shue and Jennifer Lawrence are mother and daughter, discovering a horror - tinged secret in «House at the End of the Street» (Sept. 21); Karl Urban plays «Dredd» (Sept. 21), a helmeted avenger who cleans up the futuristic Mega City as its judge, jury and (wait for it...) executioner; In the animated «Hotel Transylvania,» Dracula (voiced by Adam Sandler) struggles to cope with his daughter's new non-vampire love interest (Sept. 28).

As America's most - cited judge, Judge Richard Posner, put it last year, «Judges have difficulty understanding modern technology and jurors have even greater difficulty, yet patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats -LSB-...]&rajudge, Judge Richard Posner, put it last year, «Judges have difficulty understanding modern technology and jurors have even greater difficulty, yet patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats -LSB-...]&raJudge Richard Posner, put it last year, «Judges have difficulty understanding modern technology and jurors have even greater difficulty, yet patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favor patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats -LSB-...]».

Of course, Wyoming judges and juries will most certainly reduce an ultimate recovery award by the proportion of the injured party's fault.

Though most of his cases involve complex scientific issues, Larkin enjoys the challenge of condensing the technical issues in a case and presenting them to judge and jury in a simple, direct, and forceful manner.

Most taxidermied animals also have the distinct advantage of being quite portable, and they can also make a nice presentation to the judge or jury by themselves or if paired with a law book or gavel.

Robbery is a serious charge and is always an indictable offence (i.e. the most serious offence), which means it involves the right of the accused to have a preliminary inquiry and a trial by judge and jury, if the accused wishes to.

He or she has the required skill to ensure that your case is properly prepared for the possibility of a trial in court, and that includes preparing and filing all of the necessary documents, following the Rules of Court, and obtaining the necessary evidence and witnesses to support your claim and present it to the judge or jury in a manner that will make the most of your claim.

«Reining in Remedies in Patent Litigation: Three (Increasingly Immodest) Proposals» proposes that injunctions be unavailable over FRAND - pledged SEPs, advocates apportionment of the disgorgement of an infringer's profits that a design patent holder can seek (this approach would have taken care of a substantial part of the damages issue in Apple v. Samsung, for example), and finally — which is the most ambitious part but makes a lot of sense to me — elaborates in the form of a «thought experiment» on an idea Judge Posner tossed out a few month ago: for a «wide swath of U.S. patent cases» it might be preferable to avoid juries.

In most courts, jury instructions are pre-printed, and the judge is not allowed to stray from them.

Plaintiffs» lawyers track verdicts in the District and Circuit courts, and have a good idea of what judges and juries tend to do in most situations.

She has spent most of her legal career as part of the team litigating the expropriation lawsuits that arose from the property acquisitions necessary for the new University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Medical Center complexes constructed in Mid-City New Orleans, and has handled multiple jury and judge trials.

That means being honest with the judge, opposing counsel, oftentimes the insurance company representative (which I have found is always the person behind the scenes controlling the money decisions and is the reason the case is going to trial; the powerful decision - maker who the judge and jury never meet or even get to know about), and most importantly, the jury.

This is obviously a power of tremendous consequence which should be exercised for the most stringent of reasons, which is just what Macon County Judge Dale Segrest did when he overruled a jury and sentenced 19 year old Bobby Waldrop, white, to death because, quote, «If I had not imposed the death sentence, I would have sentenced three black people to death and no white people.»

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).

However, in 1997, after several appeals and a conviction for jury tampering, in a decision that surprised most legal commentators, the sentencing judge found that a 10 - year sentence was «grossly disproportionate» to the offence.

Among judges who do not permit attorneys to use social media during the jury selection process, the most common reasons were concerns about logistics and the privacy of jurors.

Most issues can be resolved either by counsel persuading the judge to leave the questions unasked, or by agreeing that counsel, who has forgotten to ask the question, may do so when the jury and the witness return.»

While you may have been led to believe through the media that most cases are regularly heard before a judge and jury, the reality is that most cases are settled out of court.

Practically speaking, most often judges and juries will tally economic damages and then decide the non-economic damages as a multiple (two times, three times) of that amount.

Among the topics covered in this book are «Five Keys to Telling a Compelling Story in the Courtroom,» «Ten Videos to Help Litigators Become Better at Storytelling,» «Great Courtroom Storytelling Articles From Trial Experts,» «Trial Presentation Errors That Lawyers Can Easily Avoid,» «Litigation Graphics Psychology and Color Meaning,» «The 14 Most Preventable Trial Preparation Mistakes,» «New Study: A Graphically Immersive Trial Presentation Works Best,» «Practice, Say Jury Consultants, Is Why Movie Lawyers Perform So Well,» «Three Ways to Force Yourself to Practice Your Trial Presentation,» «Explaining a Complicated Process Using Trial Graphics,» and «Litigation Graphics Timelines Can Persuade Judges and Juries.»

Most courts and attorneys will look at prior case law to determine what judges and juries have awarded in the past for similar injuries.

A jury, and not the judge, will decide the defendant's fate in most criminal cases.

Pain and suffering can not be precisely calculated therefore a judge will most often leave this calculation up to the jury's common sense.

ABOTA is one of the most premier associations of trial attorneys and judges, requiring a certain number of jury trials as lead counsel and approval by a majority vote of the ABOTA board.

Besides accepting all items on which Oracle and Google had reached agreement in their joint memorandum, the judge granted Oracle its most important wish: the final decision on the number of asserted patent claims to go to jury trial will not be taken now but instead at the final pre-trial conference.

I have specialized in a broad spectrum of civil litigation for plaintiffs and defendants including personal injury cases from car accidents to defamation and a vast number of business and real estate disputes, most tried before judge, jury or arbitrator.

What a lawyer knows about the law, the parties, the venue, the judge, the jury — this matters a great deal and accordingly firms invest heavily in trying to secure the most knowledgeable attorneys, the best graduates, and the best administrators.

We have tried class claims to judgment before judges and juries, and we believe anticipating that possibility is the most effective defense.

Prior to the judge instructing the jury, the judge holds what is known as a jury charge conference with the attorneys from both sides so that each side can submit jury charges to the judge for what they believe the law states and which, if read to the jury, they believe will be most beneficial to their clients.

Indeed, the greatest and most effective form of «patent reform» might simply be to knock these self - impressed patent litigators and Federal Circuit judges off their pedestals, recognize patent law as simply just another area of law in general, and present the issues to a jury without delay, followed by a review, if appropriate, in the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge reviews the charges submitted by both sides and picks and chooses which ones will present the most accurate and balanced statement of the law to the jury.

The most significant recent development in punitive damages awards in the context of employment law is the willingness of judges and juries to award significantly higher damage awards than in the past.

The lawyers for the doctor or hospital (and their experts) rarely say it outright — because they are worried that jurors and judges will see right through it as a claim that doctors can never be held accountable for anything — but this defense is embedded deeply in most of the arguments they make for the jury.

As Texas attorney and legal technology expert Jeffrey S. Lisson has written [pdf], «Timelines are the most effective way to give a judge or jury a sense of who did what, when, and to whom.

Most judges have enormous respect for juries and «a high level of day - to - day confidence» in what they do.

The trial judge's comment that most cases fall into the lower end of the range, that is between 5 percent and 10 percent is useful additional guidance for the jury.

Jury nullification in the broader sense can cause cases to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal for reasons # 4 or # 5, but most of the time, jury nullification will not cause a verdict to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal (even if statements from jurors after the trial make it clear that jury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verdJury nullification in the broader sense can cause cases to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal for reasons # 4 or # 5, but most of the time, jury nullification will not cause a verdict to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal (even if statements from jurors after the trial make it clear that jury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verdjury nullification will not cause a verdict to be thrown out by a judge or on appeal (even if statements from jurors after the trial make it clear that jury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verdjury nullification in the broader sense actually took place), if a jury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verdjury that weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses differently than the actual jury did could have reached the same verdjury did could have reached the same verdict.

However, it emphasizes Professor Dodek's point that «The jury's verdict not only vindicated St. Lewis but also the entire justice system because the defendant had impugned the integrity of most of the judges who participated in the proceedings and the integrity of the Canadian justice system.»

In doing so, Erickson opens a window onto a world where judges» and juries» responses to the most intimate or violent acts were coloured by a desire to shore up the liberal economic order by maintaining boundaries between men and women, Native people and newcomers, and capital and labour.

Amicus further highlights that this case presents the narrowest and most troubling instance of such a Sixth Amendment problem — namely express judicial reliance on so - called «acquitted conduct» involving jury - rejected, judge - discovered offense facts to calculate an enhanced Guideline sentencing range and thereby justify an aggravated sentence.