Sentences with phrase «so judge and jury»

«Nicholas Serota seems determined to find the new cutting edge, so judge and jury are chosen on the basis of the certainty that they will agree with who he thinks should be considered.

Not exact matches

School administrators, who often play the roles of juries and judges when it comes to determining whether sexual assault took place, are ill - equipped to do so: «There's a competency gap here.»

So anyone who sits on jury and condemns someone to death, the judge that imposes the sentence, the guards working in the jail and anyone else who is involved in executing prisoners is going to hell?

«However, I intend to do so before an independent Tribunal, not before yourselves acting as a judge and jury in your own case.

So the law provides, and so the judge instructed the jurSo the law provides, and so the judge instructed the jurso the judge instructed the jury.

Two hours after the jury started deliberating the case, a juror sent a letter to the judge complaining about how miserable the whole thing was making them: «I am wondering if there is anyway I can be excused from this case, because I have a different opinion / view so far in this case and it is making me feel very, very uncomfortable.

It's these customers who will ultimately be the judge and jury of your selection, so make sure you clearly define them upfront, document their primary needs, and make them an integral part of the selection process.

A judge and jury and high - priced lawyers are going to help decide so it probably doesn't even matter who is right.

I tell clients all the time to call the right department, and if the other person on the end of the phone sounds as though they are judge, jury and executioner,,, time for a bad connection (keep paper to crunch in the background) and call back and get someone who appears compassionate, I say this so the phone servicer can't note the file in a negative manner for the next call or department.

Pledge and review systems that the US advocates so strongly simply let them be their own judge and jury.

Not so, like lawyers bringing up inadmissible evidence or points in trial and the judge tells the jury to ignore it, the damage is already done.

When I began my own career as a district court judge, I made it a point to meet with every jury in any case I tried so that I could answer their questions and get their impressions on the trial process and their role as a jury.

The direct, cross-examination, witnesses, opening, closing and voir dire should all follow suit so that the information presented to the jury or judge follows that theme and theory.

The Crown should ask the trial judge to reconsider the Corbett ruling so that the jury (or trial judge in a judge - alone trial) gets a fair and complete picture.209 Similarly, in a jury case, a defence strategy centred on an attack on the credibility of the victim can affect an accused's successful Corbett application, potentially opening up his or her entire criminal record to cross-examination for credibility purposes.210

The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the contract claim, so the jury had to decide the amount of compensatory damages and the fraud and punitive damages claims.

But in (US) legal terms, a jury ruling is different from a court ruling, so each case is judged on its merits and on the specific evidence presented.

However, the Court found that the defects in the question to the jury did not necessitate a new trial, and that the trial judge was correct not to poll the jury in the circumstances, despite having the jurisdiction to do so.

I paid about 4 dollars for the jury fee, and the judge allowed me to «serve» them via certified mail so that cost me 6 or 7 dollars.

In the case of litigation where infringement and validity of the patent are at issue, my degree provides a technical foundation which helps me fully understand the invention so I can distil relatively complex technology into more easily understandable arguments to present to a judge or jury who often do not have a technical background.

Answer: Doing so will probably get you kicked off of the jury, plus at least a lecture from the judge about violating your oath as a juror, a $ 250.00 fine, and a court order to go home and write a five - page essay on the importance of the Sixth Amendment.

Judges are also offered training to help them ask the right questions about an expert's qualifications or a peer - reivewed study, so that they can cull irrelevant evidence from the record and determine whether evidence is scientifically reliable and ultimately helpful to juries.

In certain circumstances, conduct is deemed to be so severe, so reckless, and so damaging that juries and judges are permitted to award punitive damages to plaintiffs in Illinois truck accident cases.

That means we are asking the Judge — without a jury — to rule that the evidence so clearly shows the defendant was negligent that the Judge — without even giving the case to the jury to consider — should rule that the defendant was negligent and is liable to our client, the plaintiff.

Before calling for a change so fundamental as to delete the dishonesty element in order to secure some convictions, what is urgently needed is that the OFT gains some experience of prosecuting a contested trial and that there is some «road - testing» of the offence by a judge and jury.

The short answer, therefore, is that in England and Wales a defendant can not be convicted on a charge that is not listed on the indictment, but a jury can convict of any charge on the indictment if the judge asks the jury to retire and consider a verdict - but the case may not get so far as that, if a plea - bargain is struck.

Expert witnesses, such as doctors, who come to court to testify, do so in order to give evidence and opinion on complicated matters outside of the realm of the general knowledge of judges and juries.

It is important to prepare for your court hearing and to conduct a full investigation of your firearm accident beforehand so that you can present a viable theory of cause to the courtroom judge and jury.

Reasons included (1) judges «grade on a curve» and, after sitting through 20 cases involving violent crimes, might not find a more minor crime as serious whereas a jury would not share this context; (2) defendants will select those judges who they believe will be more inclined to acquit; (3) judges are bound by fixed sentencing rules so rather than sentence a defendant of a nonserious crime to a lengthy term they avoid that dilemma through acquittal; (4) judges might better understand the complex elements of certain corporate crimes and, unlike a jury, would recognize when the prosecution failed to carry its burden and (5) some judges may just have something against prosecutors.

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.»

But everybody has to know that this may end up in the courtroom, and so our people have to be trained to be able to stand on their feet and present the cases to the jury or to the judge.

And in his Ring concurrence, Justice Scalia chides Justice Breyer by saying that «unfortunately this case has nothing to do with sentencing» Plus, Scalia makes it crystal clear in Ring that he believes that Apprendi gave no role to juries in sentencing, as opposed to a role in convicting or acquitting of crimes, when he went out of his way to say that states who leave the ultimate life and death decision to judges may continue to do And in his Ring concurrence, Justice Scalia chides Justice Breyer by saying that «unfortunately this case has nothing to do with sentencing» Plus, Scalia makes it crystal clear in Ring that he believes that Apprendi gave no role to juries in sentencing, as opposed to a role in convicting or acquitting of crimes, when he went out of his way to say that states who leave the ultimate life and death decision to judges may continue to do and death decision to judges may continue to do so.

While prosecutors and judges typically frown on such verdicts and prefer to keep this right secret from jurors so they can not exercise it, there is nothing illegal about jury nullification and jurors can not be punished for their verdicts.

So construed question of law would include (without attempting anything like an exhaustive definition which would be impossible) questions touching the scope, effect or application of a rule of law which the courts apply in determining the rights of parties; and by long usage, the term question of law has come to be applied to questions which, when arising at a trial by a judge and jury, would fall exclusively to the judge for determination.»

She argued that the judge should have instructed the jury on the «presumption of negligence» and because the judge declined to do so, the appellate court should reverse the jury verdict.

So, we can see that the idea that juries may act contrary to the will of a judge is nothing new in American law and in fact it is an act of resistance to government oppression that our Founders believed to be fundamental in a Republic that was to remain free under the rule of law, rather than enslaved according to the rule of men.

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.»

The judge will usually not let them use a cause strike, saying that an attorney is ethical enough to apply the facts to the law and not sway the jury based on their personal biases that everyone has; plus, we're officers of the court so we have a duty to be ethical.

When you step into court, you can do so with an attorney by your side who has decades of experience getting results in front of a judge and jury.

One bit of conventional wisdom that is commonly heard in the defense bar is that defendants should generally remove cases to federal court when they have the right to do so because juries are less prone to extreme verdicts and the judges are more favorable to defendants.

As I reported in the article last week, this was a case so complicated that the judge begged the parties to settle before it went to a verdict (calling it a «coin toss») and was also a case in which the jury instructions took two hours to explain and included a 109 page document.

And, because we try so many cases, we have mastered the art of explaining these often complex technologies to judges and juries that do not have technical backgrounAnd, because we try so many cases, we have mastered the art of explaining these often complex technologies to judges and juries that do not have technical backgrounand juries that do not have technical backgrounds.

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.

We know that obtaining those cell phone and data records from the at fault driver will be very important to your case so that we can prove to the insurer, Judge and Jury that the at - fault driver was operating his smart phone instead of watching the road.

The bill is just the latest in a 20 - year effort by the state's legislature to force judges to give jury nullification instructions and do to so with specific verbiage.

-- whether it's a jury or a judge or your client — are so familiar with visual communication, through the Internet and e-mail and PowerPoint presentations and their smart phones, that I think lawyers need to step up and start figuring out how to use the power of those things.

Judging by the topics searched for and read during the 100,000 + visits to A2L's website and industry - leading litigation blog so far in 2017, the legal industry is especially eager to learn more about voir dire, storytelling for persuasion (including visual persuasion), and jury consulting generally.

I would argue that the combination of these two outcomes related to design patents doesn't make sense, but Apple's smartphone design patent case is strong enough that a jury can find that way, and the tablet design patent case is so strong that Apple may very well get the jury overruled either by Judge Koh or on appeal.

In accordance with this test, a trial judge must instruct the jury to determine: (1) whether the evidence established the employee's deceitful conduct on a balance of probabilities; and (2) if so, whether the nature and degree of the dishonesty warranted dismissal.

It is a question of law whether or not particular facts did or did not amount to an accident and so this issue is for the decision of the judge (not the jury) where the case is being tried in the crown court.

If that is the case, then it may explain why the jury is taking so long to use that flip chart and calculator that they asked the judge to let them take to the jury room.