Generally, yes.
There are a lot of rule and exceptions to jeopardy, though. Consult your attorney for advice specific to your case.
Pros; some pros in the double jeopardy rule are that they have more time to gather up more evidence to introduce to the Jury and the Judge. Cons; Some cons in the double jeopardy rule are that if they dont gather all of the evidence the person is tried and found not guilt because all the evidence was not collected.
Jack Benny Show, Jackie Gleason Show and The Jay Leno Show are TV shows that begin with the letter J. Additional shows include Jeopardy, The Jeffersons, Judge Judy and Justice with Judge Jeanine.
(in the US) Double Jeopardy is prohibited by the US Constitution.
No, double jeopardy is when someone is charged twice for the same crime, which is illegal in the US.
Yes but you need to provide compelling evidence to the court. The judge will review the evidence and issue a ruling.Yes but you need to provide compelling evidence to the court. The judge will review the evidence and issue a ruling.Yes but you need to provide compelling evidence to the court. The judge will review the evidence and issue a ruling.Yes but you need to provide compelling evidence to the court. The judge will review the evidence and issue a ruling.
Take it with you. The judge will ask you questions and, if you need your evidence, show it to him then.
Jeopardy, Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Jersey Shore (hit?)...
There is little surviving evidence to judge Rome's accomplishments in the field of music.
Juvenile judge find me guilty no evidence just one the victim Asia but the victim witness said he wasn't me
Yes, there are rules regarding how evidence must be brought to the court and admitted as evidence. So if you don't follow the rules the judge doesn't have to allow it.You have asked a complicated question and not provided any details.Briefly, the rules of evidence apply to criminal and civil proceedings and the judge is the person who governs the trial. In some cases a litigant may want to present some "proof" of something to the court and it doesn't rise to the level of evidence. To be admissible, evidence must be both relevant and material. There must be a relationship between the evidence and the issues in the case. If the "evidence" presented is not relevant the judge may decide to exclude it. A judge has final say on what is or is not admissible in their court. You need to ask your attorney to explain why the evidence was rejected. The judge should have provided a ruling on its merits.If you still want to pursue the matter you can file for an appeal and have the appeals court see if the judge's refusal of the evidence was justified. If you think the judge has a conflict of interest resulting from any personal interest in the case then you need to approach the higher court to request a transfer to another judge.
A judge has final say on what is or is not admissable in their court. The only recourse if the evidence was refused is to file for an appeal and have the appeals court see if his/her refusal of the evidence was justified. If they find in favor of the judge, you're out of luck. If on the other hand the appeals court decides the evidence should be admissable, the case will most likely be retried with the new evidence presented.
Judge and mocercy