trial jury
Where a jury gives a verdict of "not guilty" this is usually binding. However a "guilty" verdict may be overturned (on appeal) in rare cases if new evidence comes to light or if there were mistakes made during the trial.
Decisions were made by a majority vote in a state.
Magistrates make administrative hearing decisions.
Not necessarily. The US Supreme Court sometimes issues per curiam opinions that are binding (on the instant case) but unsigned; however, these decisions do not set precedent for future cases.
made decisions about war and peace
trial jury :P
Trail jury, i think
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.
precedent {APEX}
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).
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.
Circuit courts are trial courts. In these court cases are head and judgements are made E
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.
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.
The decisions are called precedents. Precedents are used as a guide by future court cases with similar fact patterns.
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.
Decisions are made to plan for your future.