A change of venue is asked for when a defendant cannot receive an impartial trial in the original location.
A change of venue is asked for when a defendant cannot receive an impartial trial in the original location.
A change of venue is asked for when a defendant cannot receive an impartial trial in the original location.
Change of Venus
"fair and impartial" (???)
This practice is referred to as a "Change of Venue". A change of venue is issued when the court believes that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial within the jurisdiction. Often, this occurs when an infamous crime is committed in a small town. In such situations, rumors get around very quickly, so by the time the court is picking out a jury, the entire populace has a biased, or corrupted, opinion. Assuming the change is accepted, the trial will be held in a new jurisdiction, where the citizens (and jury) were not exposed to such rumors and biased opinions. The idea is to secure the defendant's right to a fair, impartial trial, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
This practice is referred to as a "Change of Venue". A change of venue is issued when the court believes that the defendant cannot receive a fair trial within the jurisdiction. Often, this occurs when an infamous crime is committed in a small town. In such situations, rumors get around very quickly, so by the time the court is picking out a jury, the entire populace has a biased, or corrupted, opinion. Assuming the change is accepted, the trial will be held in a new jurisdiction, where the citizens (and jury) were not exposed to such rumors and biased opinions. The idea is to secure the defendant's right to a fair, impartial trial, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Yes. A request for a change of venue is only appropriate if it can be demonstrated to the court that the jury pool of the court is tainted (usually by publicity surrounding the case) and the defendant might not receive a fair trial by an impartial jury. If it is a bench trial, the most you could do is request that the judge recuse himself in favor of another judge.
After conviction, the defendant will receive a sentence.
If the defendant was found personally liable, you may not receive much from this judgment. A judgment just says the money is owed, it doesn't provide the remedy for paying it.
It is commendable that the judge's verdicts were consistently fair and impartial, as these qualities are essential for upholding justice and the rule of law. Fairness and impartiality ensure that all parties involved receive equal treatment and have their rights protected, leading to greater trust and confidence in the legal system.
A defendant may choose to accept a plea bargain instead of going to trial to potentially receive a lighter sentence, avoid the uncertainty and cost of a trial, and to resolve the case more quickly.
That is entirely up to the judge. The court is not party to a plea agreement and the prosecutor cannot guarantee what kind of treatment you will receive in court. Personally I have seen judges throw out plea agreements and try the defendant on his original charge.