Juvenile judge find me guilty no evidence just one the victim Asia but the victim witness said he wasn't me
not to feel guilty and to find evidence to prove you are guilty
Innocent means you are innocent of a crime.. That is you did not commit it. A court (jury/judge) will not find someone "innocent". They can't say that you did not commit a crime, they can only decide for "not guilty" if the evidence presented is enough that you are believed to have committed a crime (guilty) or not (not guilty).
In most cases, you have the right to have your case heard by a jury, rather than a judge, in the US. In the criminal context, this means that jury will hear the evidence, and they will decide whether or not to find you guilty. In the civil context, this means that a jury will hear the evidence and determine who is liable to pay the damages.The judge still makes decisions of law, but the jury decides issues of fact, such as who is lying.That you will be sent to court, and the decision will be made by a group of adults which will determine whether you are 'guilty' or 'innocent' - after the jury has made their choice, the judge will carry out with the sentence.
The term convicted means accused, for instance if you are convicted of a murder, someone is accusing you of that murder. The proper definition is to find or prove to be guilty, to convince of error or sinfulness.
The most common way I've heard it said: (in non-jury trials) "I find you guilty." (in jury trials) "You have been found guilty" or, "The jury finds you guilty."
Yes. A judge can direct the jury but cannot force them to a verdict. For example - the judge may say something like "..If you are satisfied the defendant acted maliciously, then you must find him guilty of murder. If not, then you must find him guilty of manslaughter..."
The word "innocent" means the same as "not guilty". But nowhere apart from Scotland is anyone "found innocent". That is because in all common law systems, accused persons are presumed innocent unless proven to be guilty. If there is not enough proof that the person is guilty, he is found to be "not guilty" even though there is no proof of his innocence. The OJ Simpson case is a case in point. One court found that there was more evidence of his guilt than there was of his innocence, but another court found that there was not enough evidence of his guilt to find that he was proven guilty of the crime. He was therefore found not guilty although no court would find him innocent.
Unless you have proof you are not guilty the judge will still find you guilty. Why not just take responsibility for your actions if you are guilty.
That depends on what "decide what the evidence is" means. The jury does not decide what evidence is admissible in the court; that is up to the judge, and is one of the judge's primary responsibilities. If the attorney for one side or the other thinks evidence should not be admitted, they can make a motion to suppress or exclude it on various grounds, or object during the trial. If the judge decides that the jury should not consider a certain piece of evidence that was introduced, he or she can instruct the jury to disregard it. The jury's only role is to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not (or to find for the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil case).
When the lawyer has the strongest evidence to prove that the person is not guilty. Added: When the prosecution fails to present their case clearly enough, or produce enough evidence, to convince the judge or (if it's a trial) a jury of the defendant's guilt.
8
At law, in a jury trial, the jury makes findings of factand the judge makes conclusions of law. In a bench trial, the judge makes both findings of fact and conclusions of law.To distinguish this type of jury from the grand jury, it is sometimes known as a petit jury. Also, less formally than the law French, it is known as a jury of one's peers.