Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Original file (1,270 × 1,660 pixels, file size: 2.2 MB, MIME type: application/pdf, 3 pages) This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons . Information from its description page there is shown below.
FRE 606(b)(2) lists specific exceptions to the no-impeachment rule, noting that jurors “may testify about whether: (A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention; (B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or (C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form ...
Juror misconduct is when the law of the court is violated by a member of the jury while a court case is in progression or after it has reached a verdict. [1] Misconduct can take several forms: Communication by the jury with those outside of the trial/court case. Those on the outside include “witnesses, attorneys, bailiffs, or judges about the ...
The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's hush money case in New York has approved a questionnaire for jury selection and instructions for prospective jurors in the trial, which is set ...
The jury delivered a unanimous guilty verdict after three hours of deliberations. In the sentencing phase of the trial Abu-Jamal read to the jury from a prepared statement and was then sworn and cross-examined about issues relevant to the assessment of his character by Joseph McGill, the prosecuting attorney. [50]
A special jury verdict form may be used to have the jury answer directed questions as to the required elements for a cause of action or special issues and to demarcate monetary awards of damages by economic and non-economic damages, beneficiary, and specific categories of damages (lost earning capacity, funeral expenses, loss of consortium ...
New Zealand previously required jury verdicts to be passed unanimously, but since the passing of the Criminal Procedure Bill in 2009 the Juries Act 1981 [55] has permitted verdicts to be passed by a majority of one less than the full jury (that is an 11–1 or a 10–1 majority) under certain circumstances.
As common law provided, the judge could set aside (or nullify) a jury verdict when the judge decided the verdict was contrary to the evidence or the law. Common law precluded the judge from himself entering a verdict; a new trial, with a new jury, was the only course permissible. In Slocum v.