Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A closing argument, summation, or summing up is the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence introduced at ...
in some cases, to formalize uncontroversial decisions as well (e.g. some RMs and AfDs) Being a closer is a position of responsibility and trust, and should be approached both seriously and cautiously. Each closing statement should be neutral and well-written, and should only be performed after careful analysis of the discussion in question.
The jury waited at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse Wednesday morning while the judge and attorneys continued their review of instructions and prosecutors’ plans for closing statements.
Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact" since popular perception is that most laws subjected to the standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time.
After a lunch break, into what approached an almost four-hour-long closing statement, Roos rested his case: "The defendant is overwhelmingly, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty." 'Bad business decisions'
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has written roughly 100 opinions in more than three years on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That left the Tax Court with a decision on whether to defer to circuit court decisions in deciding new cases, knowing that its interpretations might be accepted by some circuit courts and overturned in others. Initially, the Tax Court decided to maintain its own consistency rather than use the circuit court precedents when they differed.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.