Sentences with phrase «required of jurors»

Not exact matches

The appeals court said Judge Valerie E. Caproni's instructions to jurors in 2015 did not comply with a later U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the acts required to convict public officials in a quid pro quo bribery scheme to formal exercises of government power, not just meetings or telephone calls.

At Silver's trial jurors were told they could convict based on «any action under color of official authority» by Silver, but the 2d Circuit said the Supreme Court ruling required a «formal exercise of government power,» rather than lesser acts like just making a phone call or having a meeting.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers proposed a cornucopia of possible solutions, ranging from finishing the trial with just 11 jurors to replacing a current juror with an alternate — a move that would require the newly constituted 12 - member jury to restart deliberations entirely.

The prosecutor said jurors could impute that state of mind from other factors in the case, including the perception of other people involved in the exchanges as well as what he called Silver's «lies» on required disclosure forms and in response to press inquiries.

Because French was not required to waive his immunity from prosecution when he testified before the grand jurors, the report said, under state law he can not be prosecuted «regardless of the ultimate conclusions» reached by the the attorney general's office.

They include, but are never limited to: the art submitted, the rules required for submitting, the juror's sense of what the exhibition should be about, the artists» sense of what the exhibition should be about, the amount and type of exhibition space... Yep, the list goes on.

While acknowledging the lack of a Supreme Court rule on the extent to which a party is required to research a potential or actual juror, the court stated:

In a Maryland case (State v. Hutchinson) that followed Torcaso, a man convicted of murder challenged his conviction on the ground that Article 36 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights similarly required that jurors profess a belief in the existence of God.

From his perspective, the ability to understand and communicate with various witnesses and jurors, as well as an array of clients, requires an ability to listen carefully and speak clearly.

A unanimous verdict is required in federal court, but in Idaho courts a verdict must be agreed to by 3 / 4ths of the jurors.

In order to reach a verdict, the required number of jurors must agree on each point to be decided.

In the analysis of section 108 (6) of the Courts of Justice Act, the Court found that 5 jurors who agree on the «bottom line» conclusion asked in Part (a) of a question do not need to agree on each «particular» they are required to list in Part (b) that leads them to that «bottom line».

And if not today, in the near future, being a competent lawyer, in many practice areas, will require an understanding of how clients, jurors, judges, and other lawyers use them.

You are probably not surprised to learn that the Ninth Circuit punted on this part of the problem and will leave it to lower courts — the ones actually stuck dealing with juries — to figure out how on earth to ensure gay and lesbian jurors are not unfairly struck from a jury while not accidentally requiring those same jurors to out themselves.

It requires the juror to respect the legitimacy and authority of the law, and to only refuse to apply the law in the exceptional case where, assessed as a representative for the community as a whole, such a refusal is essential for justice (with justice defined in light of our laws and constitution).

These statements are seriously problematic because, as you also state, ethical behaviour of the jury «requires the juror to impartially and fairly assess the evidence respecting the law as set out by the trial judge».

After determining that the plaintiff's counsel had preserved the issue for trial, the Court of Appeal found that the failure to properly qualify the prospective jurors required that there be a new trial.

It points to the 1972 case United States V. Dougherty, decided 2 - 1 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as the benchmark case in which the Court ruled that judges aren't required to inform jurors about nullification because this power is «implied» in the overall instructions.

For this reason, nearly all Florida medical malpractice cases require the testimony of experts to explain some of the issues in the case to the jurors.

AB 69 Revises provisions governing the recycling of paper and paper products by courts; revises provisions governing the duties of court clerks and justices of the peace in relation to the fees charged by those officials; revises provisions governing the collection and reporting of certain statistical information; changes the term «county clerk» to «clerk of the court» in certain statutes; removes provisions requiring courts provide the Court Administrator certain orders relating to bail forfeitures; repeals provisions governing an offer of judgment; repeals the requirement that the Nevada Supreme Court decide an appeal from judgment imposing the death penalty within a certain period; repeals provisions governing the selection of panels of jurors by boards of county commissioners; revises various other provisions relating to court administration.

A unanimous verdict is required in federal court, whereas many state courts, including those in California, require only 9 of 12 juror votes for a verdict.

In their motion for a new trial, Stanford's lawyers did not assert that any Stanford - related tweets actually reached any of the jurors, but rather that these tweets are «likely to have reached a juror, since Twitter does not require active pursuit of information, but rather, if a friend of the juror's was following the «Stanford trial,» the tweets might automatically show up on a juror's Twitter account.»

This landmark case firmly grounded in English common law rights that were carried overseas by the colonists, including freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly, as well as the fundamental right of jurors to render a general verdict based on conscience, including setting aside the law when a just verdict requires it.

A study conducted by Pennington and Hastie (1988) found that jurors were more prone to decide in favor of the side that used a story format, as opposed to requiring jurors to construct their own story from those told by witnesses presented in a random fashion.

That bill would have required judges inform jurors of

Inaugurated in 1991, Jury Rights Day is FIJA's signature celebration, annually commemorating the conscientious acquittal of William Penn in 1670 that firmly grounded in common law jurors» right to vote Not Guilty when a just verdict requires it, even if the law has technically been broken.

But they do have a far keener understanding of the importance of free expression than do most government administrators or jurors, and they have had considerable experience in making value judgments of the type required by the constitutional standards for obscenity.

(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

As is typical with omnibus Bills, instead of stopping at what needs to be done, the government went above and beyond by also adding under the proposed s 644 (3), an ability to convert a jury trial in mid-trial into a trial by judge alone, in the event the number of jurors fall below the number required to continue the trial.

4 The following persons are excluded from serving as jurors: (a) members of the Privy Council, the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada; (b) members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and the Executive Council; (c) members of the council of a municipality or members of a board of trustees of a school district or school division; (d) judges of the Provincial Court, justices of the Court of Appeal and Court of Queen's Bench and justices of the peace, whether retired or not; (e) barristers and solicitors, whether or not they are practising, and students ‑ at ‑ law; (f) medical examiners under the Fatality Inquiries Act; (g) officers and employees of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta; (h) persons who (i) have been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted, or (ii) are currently charged with a criminal offence; (i) witnesses summoned to attend before the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly during the period that their attendance is required; (j) persons confined in an institution; (k) persons engaged in the administration of justice, including (i) members and employees of any police service, (ii) probation officers, (iii) employees of the Department of Justice, and (iv) employees of the Department of Justice of Canada or the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Thank you for your interest in the independent juror's role in protecting human rights and safeguarding justice, and in the educational work of the Fully Informed Jury Association to inform everyone of jurors» traditional, legal authority to conscientiously acquit by jury nullification when a just verdict requires it.

Punitive damages require jurors to read the minds of corporate defendants, looking for bad intent or reckless disregard.

Is this transposition of social life into the intellectual sphere much different from the jury system — with its implicit belief that jurors» social instincts are their best guidelines as to what the law requires them to conclude?

While Florida requires a unanimous vote of jurors to convict a defendant of a death - eligible, capital offense, (a) the jurors» role in determining whether the defendant is put to death or sentenced to life without parole is only ADVISORY and can be overruled by a single judge, and (b) that recommendation is made based on -LSB-...]

The test that the judge applies when deciding if a defendant is unfit to plead remains that set down in the 1836 case of Pritchard [7] Following the case of Davies [8], this was generally understood to require a defendant to be able to: plead to the indictment, understand the course of proceedings, instruct a lawyer, challenge a juror and understand the evidence.

(special courts and tribunals are created to deal with cases involving classified information and issues of national security, and the courts have mechanisms for handling trade secrets, etc. to insure that information is not presented to jurors) So in that sense, there is nothing a juror could be exposed to in during their service as jurors that would require any type of continuing restriction.

The flip side, of course, isn't much more attractive, as your only option is to say that absolutely jurors should be struck for being gay, or seeming gay, which requires what many will perceive as some un-delightfully retrograde thinking.

So, if out of 100 reasonable jurors, 99 would find a person innocent and 1 would find him guilty, the current case law would require that the execution go forward.

The amount of damages may have become muddied in last year's trial because the jurors were required to fill out a complex 20 - page form when calculating the amount owed to Apple.