Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs. Why did their judgment not stand? Their judgment could stand because one of the parties believed that there was an error of law; some areas that can include mistakes about the substantive law that was made during the trial. Bases for appeal include failure by the trial judge to admit or exclude certain evidence, improper instruction being given to the jury, and the granting or denying the motion to dismiss the case. Usually the party appealing must show that the mistake would have affected the outcome.
We can keep our assumptions to ourselves but unless we consider all aspects of the situation we are not thinking critically. It is also important to recognize when you have made an assumption and attempt to rid yourself of the assumption, keeping it there will only make matters more difficult. • Fallacies are a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument. Fallacies in written arguments generally come from some type of news source: Biased material that tries people to believe something though it may just be for their gain. Fallacies in oral arguments are similar to written arguments.
What specifically needs to be told to them is: their right to remain silent, anything they say could be used against them in court, right to counsel, right to have counsel appointed to them. If these things are not said anything said by the arrestee during the interrogation will not stand in court. IV. Reasons: Each arrestee should be aware of their rights because without knowing them officials can bully the defendants into self criminalizing themselves. If they know their rights and have an attorney present they are able to tell their story without fear, and effectively.
Eyewitness testimony can leave a deep and lasting impression on the jury, perjury is a harshly frowned upon crime as lying whilst under oath is practically a mockery of the integrity and legitimacy of the court system. However perjury is defined as the act of knowingly making a false statement while under oath – determining the truth is made difficult enough without the added possibility that the witness may not actually be aware of inaccuracies in their testimony. Eye witness testimony is evidence of what a witness believes to have occurred and although eye witness testimonies aid in making a conviction creditable they are often backed up by a lot of supporting evidence as an eye witness testimony can be harmful to a conviction as memories change. The growing length of time, the emotion experienced before and after the event and the pace of which the event happened can alter the memories drastically, there is also the chance that memories can be altered by third parties, enhanced features and false claims; the list above are just some reason for why our court system doesn’t base conviction on eye witness claims and try to find as much supporting evidence as possible to from a creditable conviction. One of the first identifiable flaws in the case of James Taylor is that his conviction was based on eye witness testimonies that throughout the case had been inconsistent and altered after the witnesses were shown a photo of James Taylor several months after the crime had occurred and given information about his past however the witnesses remained unsure and were left with the possibility that it could’ve been him.
I have conducted some research for her that I am in hopes she will find informational and helpful to her. A victim can sue the offender, however this person did not report it to the police so I would advise her to contact a personal injury attorney immediately. There are other suits that need to be filed in order to obtain collection of money. The victim needs to speak with a civil attorney when wanting to sue someone. There are damages that can occur when someone is trying to sue the offender those are the victim getting a substantial amount of restitution out it.
Jury Nullification For many years the question of whether jury nullification should be allowed has been debated. Some believe that it is a great decision that juries can make to regulate the influence of legislature. For others they think that jury nullification should not be allowed and it gives too much power to the jury to the point where they can ignore laws. There is a small minority of people that think jury nullification should be allowed but have some sort of boundary or rules that could be put in place, such as the jury explaining why they believe the law is unjust. Ultimately, the facts and arguments should be examined on both sides so that a decision can be made on whether to keep jury nullification the same or whether it is in the nation’s best interest to change it by either limiting it in some way or abolishing it completely.
I will then go on to look at minimising conflict using a recognised technique and how the adverse effects can be minimised. Causes and Explanation Because there are a variety of personalities within the work place it is inevitable that there will be conflict at some point and this could be for any number of reasons; * Different Personal Values; at some point you may be asked to complete a task that conflicts with your ethical standards. When work conflicts with personal values conflict can arise very quickly and this can be overcome by trying not to ask people to do tasks that you know will cause them distress due to their beliefs/values. * Unpredictable Policies: When rules or policies change within the workplace and those changes are not communicated clearly, confusion and conflict can occur. It is essential to inform people of changes and why these changes are happening as when you are aware of why something is being altered you are much more likely to accept it.
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.
Traditional models of decision-making are built on logic and rationality. Although such models may be elegant in the logical structure of their processes, reality shows that decision-making rarely follows such a logical structure. Decision-making processes vary and are often confounded by various assumptions and biases held by the decision makers. Finding a more successful model of decision-making requires recognition of the assumptions and biases affecting decisions, along with recommendations to minimize their ill effects. Bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
Some of the obstacles that prevent good negotiations from taking place are differences, conflicts, and egos. The severity of each of these can be mitigated to help lessen their impact. Other factors that are involved in the negotiations are how interdependent each of the