The attorney wishing to have the evidence introduced, can ask the judge to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing, in which he will present his arguments for having it allowed. The opposite side will also be heard and they will offer arguments as to why it should not. Based on the arguments he hears the judge MAY reverse his decision. HOWEVER - since the judge seems to have already ruled on the evidence matter, the chances of his granting such a hearing will be slim. Eventually, at the conclusion of the trial, if the results go against the side that wanted the evidence introduced, they can appeal the case to the Court of Appeals, basing their appeal on the the fact that evidence that would have been beneficial to their side was improperly excluded. After studying that argument, the Court of Appeals may, or may, not grant such a hearing.
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).
Suppress means to exclude or prevent disclosure, often used in reference to evidence sought to be introduced at a criminal trial. A motion to suppress is a request to a judge to keep out evidence at a trial or hearing, often made when a party believes the evidence was unlawfully obtained.
"Objection overruled" is a ruling by a judge that denies an attorney's objection during a trial, allowing the line of questioning or evidence to proceed. This means that the judge has determined the objection raised lacks legal merit and does not have a valid basis in the rules of evidence or courtroom procedure.
At a bench trial, the judge decides the sentence after hearing the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
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.
the judge
Yes, a judge can dismiss a case if the district attorney submits evidence that is deemed inadmissible or obtained unlawfully. However, the judge typically would not dismiss a case solely based on the submission of wrong evidence; instead, they may rule to exclude that specific evidence from consideration. Dismissal usually occurs in more severe circumstances, such as violations of due process or prosecutorial misconduct. Ultimately, the judge's decision will depend on the context and severity of the evidence issues.
Yes, it is generally permissible to introduce new evidence during a trial, but there are rules and procedures that govern the admissibility of such evidence. The judge has the discretion to allow or exclude new evidence based on factors such as relevance, reliability, and fairness to both parties.
the judge
A jury is what determines if you are guilty, after being presented with evidence and hearing what the person accused is being charged for.
A trial can be concluded once all evidence has been presented, witnesses have testified, and both the prosecution and defense have made their closing arguments. The judge or jury then deliberates on the evidence and decides on a verdict.
The judge.