An attorney can ensure that
proper jury instructions are given, and in the event that the case needs to be appealed, an attorney can assist with that as well.
Not exact matches
The 2d Circuit said that in the absence of a
proper instruction it was impossible to tell whether the
jury convicted on the basis of something that qualified as an official act, or something that didn't.».
The defense has pushed for the judge, Valerie Caproni, to set a higher bar in her
instructions to the
jury, claiming the
proper standard requires Silver to have known that a bribe was being offered — a «meeting of the minds,» as one defense attorney put it.
«When the second grand
jury was presented with all of the evidence and was issued the
proper instructions in deciding the case, they courageously came to the right and
proper decision,» he said in a statement.
But the certain lesson to be learned here is that we need to ensure our
juries are representative of the community, that we provide them
proper instructions so that they understand their powers and how to exercise them, that we allow them to explain themselves, and that we treat them with the respect and consideration they deserve.
In Wilson v Her Majesty's Advocate 2009 JC 336, which also concerned opinion evidence, the High Court of Justiciary, in an opinion delivered by Lord Wheatley, stated the test thus (at para 58): «[T] he subject - matter under discussion must be necessary for the
proper resolution of the dispute, and be such that a judge or
jury without
instruction or advice in the particular area of knowledge or experience would be unable to reach a sound conclusion without the help of a witness who had such specialised knowledge or experience.»
Justice Wagner: «The trial judge's charge to the
jury as a whole conveyed the correct
instruction to the
jury on the
proper approach [as to how a young person's evidence is to be considered] to assessing A.Y.'s evidence and credibility.
It was
proper for the judge to send the case to the
jury without the
instruction to presume the rear driver was negligent.
The Plaintiff argued that there was no need to discharge the
jury and
proper instructions «could cure any defects in the trial ``.
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower courts, finding that the
jury instructions did not set forth the
proper standard and so the case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.