Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An inquest is a judicial inquiry in common law jurisdictions, particularly one held to determine the cause of a person's death. [1] Conducted by a judge , jury , or government official, an inquest may or may not require an autopsy carried out by a coroner or medical examiner .
In an inquisitorial system, the trial judges (mostly plural in serious crimes) are inquisitors who actively participate in fact-finding public inquiry by questioning defense lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses. They could even order certain pieces of evidence to be examined if they find presentation by the defense or prosecution to be inadequate.
The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts, tribunals, judges, arbitrators, administrative law judges, commissions [A] or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues — either because the case is too complex, the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in ...
The U.S. Bill of Rights. Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides that: . Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have ...
The Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, an example of a trial court. A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction, in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually heard by higher courts with the power of appellate review (appellate courts). Most appellate courts do not ...
The coroner can actually choose to convene a jury in any investigation, but in practice this is rare. The qualifications to sit on a coroner's jury are the same as those to sit on a jury in Crown Court, the High Court, and the County Court. [2] Additionally, a coroner's jury only determines cause of death; its ruling does not commit a person to ...
In an obiter dictum (legal opinion not forming part of the judgment) in the case of R v West London Coroner, ex parte Gray [6] in 1986, the divisional court stated that the open verdict was, as with the verdicts of unlawful killing and suicide, required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Once issues concerning the producibility of a requested statement have been raised, it is the duty of the court to conduct some sort of inquiry. This is a question for the court, and not the jury. [79] [80] A trial court's decision of what material must be produced under the Act is subject to review under the "clearly erroneous" standard. [81]