Sentences with phrase «proposed jury questions»

Many SDNY judges accept at least proposed jury questions from counsel and, if the case is high profile, a written questionnaire.

At the conclusion of the case prior to trial, counsel brought up the issue of whether the proposed jury questions should be put to a jury for deliberation.

Not exact matches

Question topics included the recent rollout of the City's municipal ID program, an internal PBA meeting reported to have degenerated into yelling and shoving over PBA President Pat Lynch's demands for an apology from the mayor and whether that provided «consolation» to the mayor, whether he takes comfort from the low number of PBA members reported to have signed «stay away from my funeral» statements, Bratton's comment that the «well was poisoned» by de Blasio's bring of former Sharpton aide Rachel Noerdlinger, a potential Teamsters strike at Hunts Point market, Governor Cuomo's consideration of legislation allowing public access to grand jury minutes, the mayor's objections to a City Council proposed bill outlawing police use of chokeholds, a reported Cuomo / Lynch meeting and what role the governor should fill in the Lynch / de Blasio dispute, whether the mayor is willing to acknowledge «missteps», the reports of Legionnaire's Disease in Co-op City, de Blasio's reaction to a possible 2016 Mitt Romney candidacy and when he last spoke with the Rev. Al Sharpton.

While actuarial evidence is not needed per se, any proposed questions that do not use such information must include a significant amount of relevant information for a jury to make an accurate determination in future loss claims and be approved by the judge.

The test of dishonesty for a jury was the well - established test articulated by Lord Lane in R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689, namely whether a jury would consider the conduct in question as dishonest «according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people»; and, if so, whether the proposed defendant «must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest».

The Appellants» Proposed «Global but for» Test: The appellants submitted that the questions and instructions were deficient because they did not tell the jury to consider «whether Jordan's injuries would have been avoided but for the defendants» collective negligent conduct.»