During a jury trial, absolutely not. The only time I've ever heard a judge directly question a witness was during a non-jury trial when they wanted to elicit specific information about a complicated subjet that the witness had already tesitified to under direct and cross. Anything else, such as suggested in the question, would be MOST improper and result in a mis-trial.
They're willing to listen to a reasonable argument presented with evidence.
They're willing to listen to a reasonable argument presented with evidence.
The unusual aspect about the duration of the jury's deliberation can vary based on the complexity of the case and the evidence presented. In some instances, a quick verdict may suggest a clear consensus, while a long deliberation could indicate disagreements among jurors or a thorough review of the evidence. The predictability of the verdict depends on various factors like the strength of the case presented by both sides and how jurors interpret and apply the law to the evidence.
What evidence suggest ghosts are real? I believe that is the evidence.
What evidence did the archaeologist find to suggest that the Tainos existed
Accept fossil evidence, anatomical evidence, molecular evidence
There is no convincing evidence.
There is no evidence to suggest this. Peace.
No, there is no evidence to suggest that.
There is lots of evidence for a common ancestor but I suggest you look at wikipedia's evidence for common descent or Talk origins 29 evidence for evolution.
There is no evidence to suggest this.
heh