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.
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made. The exclusionary rule allows criminals to go because evidence was illegally obtained, but what about the victims of the crimes. It is almost a turntable and they have become a victim for a second time. I am going to discuss the three main reasons why we as citizens should get rid of the rule. One is the releasing the guilty back into society, next is the slowing down of the criminal process and the last thing is the behavior and consequence of the police officers involved in the cases.
The roman people had a particular ways of doing trials that we are not used to. The trials were held in the forum hosted by the praetor. The praetor’s job was to solve the differences between the people of Rome. If no one can come to a conclusion then the defendant receives a writ from the praetors. Which makes the defendant to give bail for his appearance on the third if not paid him loses his cause without an excused.
The judge, a disinterested party, ensures that the two sides play by the rules. The adversarial process can sometimes seem to result in defense attorneys and prosecutors advocating for one side at the expense of the truth, the process requires lawyers to strike the most advantageous deal they can for their clients, even if they realize that other
Right to Counsel Resha Harris CJA/364 May, 16, 2012 Gary, Looney Right to Counsel When a suspect is arrested and charged, he or she has the right of a counsel with an experienced attorney. In cases, which he or she cannot afford a lawyer the state has to provide one for the accused? “Police interrogation was a major concern. Without representation by counsel, the defendant is alone and vulnerable to improper police tactics. In two late 1950s cases, Crooker v .California (1958) and Cicenia v. LA gay (1958), dissenting justice argued that voluntary confessions should be excluded on the grounds that defendants requests for attorney were denied (Zalman, p., 2008).
If a judge has given a verdict, rendered a decision, granted a written judgment, and afterward has altered his judgment, that judge shall be prosecuted for altering the judgment he gave and shall pay twelvefold the penalty laid down in that judgment. Further, he shall be publicly expelled from his judgment-seat and shall not return nor take his seat with the judges at a trial. This law is similar to the law of the 9th
A prosecutor presents evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime and the defense attorney tries to prove that the defendant is not guilty. They ensure that the defendant’s side of the story is heard, counteracts overcharging by the prosecution, and to supply their client with the best defense possible including: “providing legal counsel to client, arguing for legal innocence (not necessarily factual innocence), searching out violations of the defendant’s rights, and arguing for reduced penalties in some cases” (Meyer & Grant, p. 144). A prosecutor is paid by the state and cannot be hired, like a defense attorney, by an individual. They are hired by the public to punish those who commit crimes, in order to
The article slams the judiciary and critises their use of discretion in dealing with sex crimes. The article believes that the sentences have been too lenient and not reflecting the expectations of the community. This is further supported in the case of Richard John Annetts. This 50 Year old man was sentenced to 12-months suspended jail term with supervision from the probation and parole service. He was found guilty for possessing and filming children in the male change rooms of Ryde Aquatic Centre.
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. Jury nullification defined in the legal dictionary, is the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. In simpler terms it is when a jury refuses to convict a defendant because the law is being unfair. It is a very rare situation when a jury nullifies itself. It is said to happen in about three or four percent of criminal cases that go to trial.