Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Ancient Rome, declamation was a genre of ancient rhetoric and a mainstay of the Roman higher education system. It was separated into two component subgenres, the controversia, speeches of defense or prosecution in fictitious court cases, and the suasoria, in which the speaker advised a historical or legendary figure as to a course of action.
In its absence, a sentence but not the conviction may be overturned, resulting in the need for a new sentencing hearing. In the federal system, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4) provides that the court must "address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence ...
While Walker's approach was an attempt to put in place rules and a system on the correct form of elocution. One reason these books gained traction was that both authors took a scientific approach and made rhetorically-built arguments in a time period where manual-styled, scientific, how-to books were popular. [ 3 ]
Suasoria is an exercise in rhetoric: a form of declamation in which the student makes a speech which is the soliloquy of an historical figure debating how to proceed at a critical junction in his life. [1] As an academic exercise, the speech is delivered as if in court against an adversary and was based on the Roman rhetorical doctrine and ...
The history of Roman law can be divided into three systems of procedure: that of legis actiones, the formulary system, and cognitio extra ordinem.Though the periods in which these systems were in use overlapped one another and did not have definitive breaks, the legis actio system prevailed from the time of the XII Tables (c. 450 BC) until about the end of the 2nd century BC, the formulary ...
After the time of Solon, the Court of Areopagus was replaced and the litigant/defendant would deliver a prepared speech before the courts to try and sway the jury; they expected dramatic and brilliant oratorical displays. Now, listeners appreciated oratorical and even legalistic niceties, such as appeals to passion, piety, and prejudice.
Judges in an adversarial system are impartial in ensuring the fair play of due process, or fundamental justice.Such judges decide, often when called upon by counsel rather than of their own motion, what evidence is to be admitted when there is a dispute; though in some common law jurisdictions judges play more of a role in deciding what evidence to admit into the record or reject.
A court of appeals may also pose questions to the Supreme Court for a ruling in the midst of reviewing a case. This procedure was formerly used somewhat commonly, but now it is quite rare. For example, while between 1937 and 1946 twenty 'certificate' cases were accepted, since 1947 the Supreme Court has accepted only four. [12]