Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As the subject matter of the voir dire often relates to evidence, competence or other matters that may lead to bias on behalf of the jury, the jury may be removed from the court for the voir dire. Under Scots law, jury selection is random, and there are a few well-defined exclusions in criminal trials. [6] In Canada, the case of Erven v.
The court determining that it lacks jurisdiction over a case. Evidence being admitted improperly, or new evidence that might seriously affect the outcome of the trial being discovered. Misconduct by a party, juror, [7] or an outside actor, if it prevents due process. A hung jury which cannot reach a verdict with the required degree of unanimity ...
Summary criminal trials may be heard by a single district judge (magistrates' court) or by a panel of at least two, but more usually three, magistrates. Section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a bench trial for indictable offences, but is rarely used, having been exercised only two times since its inception.
Among juveniles who were processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to adult prison had significantly greater odds of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance abuse disorder, or comorbid affective and anxiety disorders. [12] An estimated 250,000 youth are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year across the United ...
This principle is enshrined in the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that "no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law". [4]
Trying cases in the court of public opinion refers to using the media to influence public support for one side or the other in a court case. This can result in persons outside the justice system (i.e. people other than the judge or jury) taking action for or against a party.
For those rightly concerned about the timing of Donald Trump's federal Jan. 6 trial, Thursday's oral arguments before the Supreme Court gave plenty of reasons for worry.
Justice Wright in the Court of First Instance held that there was no absolute right to a trial by jury and that the "decision as to whether an indictable offence be tried in the Court of First Instance by a judge and jury or in the District Court by a judge alone is the prerogative of the Secretary for Justice."