Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989), [1] is a decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court that held that claims of violations of fundamental rights must be heard on appeal even if they were not raised at the trial level. Together with the 1973 case State v.
In another California study, jury instructions were again simplified to make them easier for jurors to understand. The courts moved cautiously because, although verdicts are rarely overturned due to jury instructions in civil court, this is not the case in criminal court. For example, the old instructions on burden of proof in civil cases read: [3]
The Superior Court was created after the Constitution of Connecticut was adopted in 1818. The Constitution created three separate branches of government, including a judiciary composed of "... a Supreme Court of Errors, a Superior Court, and such inferior courts as the general assembly shall from time to time ordain and establish.
United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case that, among other things, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. The Court affirmed Alexander Allen's murder conviction, having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime.
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), overruled by Benton v. ... Racial discrimination in the jury pool and venire. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880)
The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's hush money case in New York has approved a questionnaire for jury selection and instructions for prospective jurors in the trial, which is set ...
Special counsel Jack Smith blasted a recent order by the judge in the classified documents case against Donald Trump, saying her request for jury instructions is based on a “fundamentally flawed ...
A civil jury is typically made up of 6 to 12 persons. In a civil case, the role of the jury is to listen to the evidence presented at a trial, to decide whether the defendant injured the plaintiff or otherwise failed to fulfill a legal duty to the plaintiff, and to determine what the compensation or penalty should be.