If the evidence is relevant in another trial, it can be used. The issue may be whether there should be a second trial at all. If it is a second trial with the same defendant there are issues of double jeopardy. If it is a second trial with a different defendant then the question arises whether the evidence is relevant. There can also be a civil trial following a criminal trial, in which case again the question is one of relevance. The most famous civil trial following a criminal trial is the OJ Simpson situation, and much evidence from the criminal trial was relevant to the civil lawsuit. See related links below.
You just say whatever fits the case>
it can be used as evidence because they are old and moved from one place to another by the power of the ocean.
It may depend on the context, but in general it means that the motion no longer has any value so it was denied simply because it doesn't matter. For example, suppose you file two separate motions: one to dismiss a case against you, and another to exclude certain evidence so it can't be used against you at trial. If the judge grants your first motion, then the second is meaningless; no evidence will be used against you because there will be no trial. Therefore, the second motion would be denied as moot.
Another name for a trial jury is "a panel of one's peers". To be fair, the court tries to have people on the jury that are educated and willing to participate in a fair trial.
When a judge allows interrogatories to be used in court, it is typically referred to as "admissibility of interrogatories." Interrogatories are written questions submitted by one party to another in a legal case, and if they are deemed relevant and properly formulated, the judge can permit their use as evidence during the trial. This process is part of the broader discovery phase, where parties gather information to prepare for trial.
extradition
Your question is unclear. In the USA, a defendant does NOT HAVE TO testify at his trial, ever. The defendant is the one accused of committing the crime. He does not have to say anything (OJ Simpson did NOT testify in his first trial, Scott Peterson did NOT testify at his trial.) The Prosecutor will present his case (with all his evidence and witnesses) explaining to the jury (or judge) WHY the evidence shows the defendant committed the crime. The Defense Attorney will present his case (with all his evidence and witnesses) explaining to the jury (or judge) WHY the evidence does NOT show the defendant committed the crime. The defendant does not have to be one of those witnesses. He cannot be forced to testify.
It is evidence that has been ruled "INADMISSABLE" by the trial judge. One is tempted to answer this question with "hearsay" evidence. HOWEVER - that would be wrong. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that the only way the admissability of hearsay can be determined is by submitting it to the trial judge and having the judge rule on it. It is entirely possible that, due to the legal cirecumstances of the case, hearsay evidence could be included. However, if the judge rules against it, it becomes "inadmissable." THUS - information that cannot be used against the accused is called "inadmissable evidence."
uninstall one trial and put in another, I do the same with Norton when I'm low on cash.
There are a few places where one can purchase used trial boots. This includes looking at used apparel stores as well as looking on online sites such as eBay and Craigslist.
A Deposition is Testimony given under oath outside of court. For the purpose of obtaining information in preparation for a court trial. It is used to try to impeach witness's by showing a change in testimony from one time to another (Deposition to Trial). Depositions are not used in all states. Some states do not allow depositions.
Fundamentalism and moderism