0
trial jury :P
Andreane Homenick
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
A what made decisions in cases that came to trial?
trial jury
Who made decisions in cases that came to trial.?
Trail jury, i think
What is a review court?
A review court is one which has appellate jurisdiction rather original jurisdiction over cases. Courts with original jurisdiction hear cases at the trial level only. Courts with appellate jurisdiction cannot hear trials. They only review decisions made by trial courts to ensure that those decisions were correctly rendered.
Which of these considers other decisions that have been made in similar cases?
precedent {APEX}
What happens to most criminal and civil cases?
Most criminal cases result in a plea bargain or trial verdict, while civil cases often settle out of court. Ultimately, the outcome depends on the available evidence, legal arguments, and decisions made by the parties involved.
Is a US District court an appeals court or a trial court?
Under most circumstances the US District Courts are the federal trial courts of general jurisdiction; however, they also hear appeals of federal agency decisions made by Administrative Law Judges (for example, appeals of Social Security Disability cases).
What is the difference between judge-made law and statute low?
A statute law is made by parliament. Statute is legislation and acts. A judge-made law, or a common law, is a result of judicial decisions, decisions which originate from court cases.
What are the duties of the circuit court?
Circuit courts are trial courts. In these court cases are head and judgements are made E
Did the emperor make the decisions at ancient roman trails?
An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.
Decisions made by judges in the various courts and used as a guide for future decisions are called what?
They are called precedents. If the decision was made by a court with jurisdiction over a lower court, they are called binding precedents because the lower court is required to apply the same reasoning in similar cases under the doctrine of stare decisis.
What Decision made by judge in the various courts and used as a guide for future decisions are called what?
The decisions are called precedents. Precedents are used as a guide by future court cases with similar fact patterns.
Which of the required all criminal cases to be tried in front of a jury?
No. A jury is not required for all criminal cases. A defendant can plead guilty or no contest and simply appear before a judge. A defendant can also wave his right to a jury trial and have the trial in front of a judge. A defendant simply has the right to a jury trial in most criminal cases in The United States. There may be a few misdemeanor cases where the penalty is small fine where he is not entitled to a jury trial.
