Sentences with phrase «which judges or juries»

This is largely explained by the fact that they are regarded as just one piece of evidence among others which judges or juries are free to weigh up and are simply intended to provide the courts with information they otherwise do not have.

Not exact matches

Winners are found this way: First, the Product of the Year Canada jury carefully selects the finalists — that is, products that meet or exceed innovation standards — which are then categorized and judged by an online survey, on behalf of Rogers Insights and conducted by TNS, of thousands of regular Canadian shoppers.

Quite apart from indications born of biblical faith, it is impossible to imagine a society in which no research of any kind could be done until the researcher had demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to a judge or a jury or a committee that it should be done.

A list of the questions asked by the jury to the judge includes one example in which they asked if a juror can «come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it».

The two alternatives now are to 1) appoint a new jury and conduct a mini-trial before it goes to decide on the penalty (which could take months); or 2) the judge could get the prosecutors to agree to forgo the death penalty; and the judge could unilaterally impose life w / o parole or life, with parole after 25 yrs.

Should a dispute arise, you agree to resolve the matter through Arbitration, in which case you will not have the right to have that claim resolved by a judge or jury and you will not have the right to participated in a class action.

ARBITRATION: The Cardmember Agreement provides that we may choose to resolve a claim relating to your account by binding arbitration, in which case, you will not have the right to have that claim resolved by a judge or jury and you will not have the right to participate in a class action in court or arbitration.

Arbitration Provision: Should a dispute arise, you agree to resolve the matter through Arbitration, in which case you will not have the right to have that claim resolved by a judge or jury and you will not have the right to participated in a class action.

Anyone who follows this route and then ends up in front of a judge or judge and jury would be hard pressed to master and explain the arcane events and principles upon which Accept for Value and Discharge is based, let alone win their case.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

I often act as a «teacher» to clearly convey the evidence which falls into my realm of expertise, based in science and fact, to assist the judge and / or jury in understanding the evidence at hand, in essence, act as an advocate for the truth.

That is, you don't expect each lawyer, defence and accusation, to defend both point of views: the judge or jury (in science: experiment) will decide which side is right.

This is partly evidenced by the fact once the option is selected, a piece of paper is produced that claims that you've appeared, pleaded no - contest and waived your right to a judge or a jury trial, at which point you're found guilty, with a deferred judgment, and with the option of case dismissal should certain conditions be satisfied.

It is important to keep in mind that personal injury cases can be very complicated for a number of reasons, including determining which evidence is admissible and how to get all favorable evidence before the judge or jury.

He has developed a unique Risk Management approach to mediation which recognizes the benefit to the parties of retaining control over the dispute resolution process, rather than exposing themselves to the uncertainty of having strangers (arbitrators, Judges or a Jury) decide their fate.

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.

In the US the damages regime is very different: Juries hear the case and set damages, which can then be trebled by the judge, if he or she considers the Defendant should be punished.

HELD The judge could remind the jury that the defendant had no previous convictions and say that, in the ordinary case, where there was no evidence of bad character, a defendant of no previous convictions would have been entitled to a direction that the jury should consider that that counted in his favour on the questions of both propensity and credibility; as it was, it was for the jury to consider which counted with them more — the absence of previous convictions or the evidence of bad character; and if the former, then they should take that into account in favour of the defendant, and if the latter, then they would be entitled to take that into account against him (Lord Justice Rix at para 43).

When your Complaint is filed, your lawyer will also specify whether you prefer a trial by jury or a «bench trial,» in which a judge makes most of the decisions.

The ruling, which takes effect Sept. 1, will require Michigan judges for the first time to instruct jurors not to use any handheld device, such as iPhones or Blackberrys, while in the jury box or during deliberations

Cons: There may be another set inside the courtroom already, which could confuse your judge or jury.

For instance, if the jury or a judge finds that the plaintiff was 20 % negligent in the accident or incident out of which the injuries arose, and the total damages were $ 100,000, then the defendant would only have to pay the defendant $ 80,000.

Unless the judge as factfinder or jury clearly shows that they are ready for the criminal defendant lawyer to let the obstructionist witness have it — which usually will not happen with any witness other than an opposing expert puffing out his or her obstructionist and obfuscating chest at all times — the judge and jury may well punish the overbearing cross examining criminal lawyer, in one way or another.

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.»

In R v Turner [1975] QB 834, a case which concerned the admissibility of opinion evidence... Lawton LJ stated at p 841: «If on the proven facts a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help, then the opinion of an expert is unnecessary.»

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.

I see attorneys flounder with objection arguments on a regular basis, which makes them look weak in front of a judge or jury, even if their objection is spot on.

In his remarks, Mueller reportedly also asked «lawmakers to expand the bureau's ability to obtain records without first asking a judge,» specifically, «to expand the FBI's administrative subpoena powers, which allow the bureau to obtain records without approval of a judge or grand jury.»

After all, our modern system of justice where parties resolve their disputes before an impartial third party (the judge) and / or a jury of their peers was intended to replace trial by combat - in which parties settled their differences by fighting it out (usually to the death).

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.»

These subjects require students to analyse people's behaviour, which enables them to provide focused advice or advocacy for both clients and for a judge or jury.

«For expert opinion to be admissible it must be able to provide the court with information which is likely to be outside a judge's or a jury's knowledge and experience, but it must also be evidence which gives the court the help it needs in forming its conclusions.»

The judge or jury will then determine the amount of money damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.

In all cases of criminal contempt arising under the provisions of this act, the accused, upon conviction, shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both; Provided however, that in case the accused is a natural person the fine to be paid shall not exceed the sum of $ 1,000, nor shall impriSonment exceed the term of six months; Provided further, That in any such proceeding for criminal contempt, at the discretion of the judge, the accused may be tried with or without a jury; Provided further, however, That in the event such proceeding for criminal contempt be tried before a judge without a jury and the sentence of the court on conviction is a fine in excess of the sum of $ 300 or imprisonment in excess of forty five days, the accused in said proceeding upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to a trial de novo before a jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in other criminal cases.

(9) Where a proceeding to which subsection 193 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act applies is tried with a jury, the judge may direct the jury to specify negligent acts or omissions that caused the damages or injuries in respect of which the proceeding is brought.

Although about 95 percent of injury claims settle before trial, one can not know in advance which claims will require a trial before a judge or jury for resolution.

Our litigation lawyers are able to offer clients the benefit of global experience and familiarity with local courts and practices, which enables us to present complex technology issues in a form that any judge or jury can understand.

Once we have enough information to guide our investigation, we hit the streets looking for new evidence of innocence which has never been heard on its merits by a judge or jury and then we bring it into court, where we fight to exonerate our client.

And the end result of litigation, which gets these cases resolved, one way or another, either by settlement, or a jury verdict, or by judge decision, is a trial.

To meet the burden of proof in a personal injury case, a plaintiff must prove his or her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the plaintiff must present evidence that when weighed by the judge or the jury, is more convincing than the defendant's.

However, the ratio between jury convictions and overall acquittals is more or less the same for offences of serious violence as for rape, from which it is almost certainly safe to infer that the ratio between jury convictions and acquittals returned after due deliberation (not judge - directed) will be broadly the same for serious violence generally and for rape.

A trial might be either a jury trial, in which jurors decide the case, or a bench trial, in which a judge decides the case.

While which driver is responsible is usually a question of fact that must be decided by a judge or jury, it helps the injured party's case if he or she was struck from behind.

An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court with scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury.

Expert evidence is limited to information which is likely outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury.

The vast majority of respondents from jurisdictions comprising a jury system found it unacceptable for jurors to post comments or opinions about the judges, lawyers, parties, and / or cases which they are observing on online social networking sites.

There are two concerns here: first, whether or not the Court of Appeal is substituting their opinion when the trial judge, who was present at the trial, decided otherwise and second, whether or not the jury made their decision based on something other than provocation, which would make the manslaughter finding appropriate.

You have the right to opt - out of this Agreement to Arbitrate (as explained below), which means that you would retain your right to litigate your disputes in a court, either before a judge or jury.

An arrest record is much different than a conviction, which is when a judge and / or jury found the subject guilty of the crime or the subject plead guilty.

HREOC supports the addition of section 165 (A) to the Evidence Act which prevents the judge from warning the jury that the evidence of children as a class is unreliable or less credible than the evidence of adults.