Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.. During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, in either determining guilt or innocence and/or a ...
The United States District Court for the District of Indiana was established on March 3, 1817, by 3 Stat. 390. [1] [2] The District was subdivided into Northern and Southern Districts on April 21, 1928, by 45 Stat. 437. [2] Of all district courts to be subdivided, Indiana existed for the longest time as a single court, 111 years.
Neary added there is a "deeper" side to jury selection because a jury of peers is a cross-section of the community. He said it is a "tremendous amount of responsibility" to be on a jury.
The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which ...
That prosecutors in the Hoosier State successfully denied people this due process is a reflection of how abusive civil forfeiture can be.
Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which held that systematically excluding women from a venire, or jury pool, by requiring (only) them to actively register for jury duty violated the defendant's right to a representative venire. [1]
Michael Hurley, of Lexington, Indiana, was found guilty of the charges in Jefferson County Circuit Court on Monday. A jury recommended a 75-year prison sentence Tuesday, according to a news ...
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2015 evolved the issue of a "representative right" in jury trials in the case of R. V. Kokopenance, [2015] SCR 28 wherein the Court held that "an accused is not entitled to a jury that includes members of their own race or religion; rather, they are only entitled to a fair and honest process of random jury selection".