They examine all the evidence and if it adds up to a conclusion, that's just what happens. They finalize the case.
No, a judge cannot refuse to look at evidence presented during a trial. It is their responsibility to consider all relevant evidence in making a fair and just decision.
Making a decision without hearing all evidence to be presented.
In court, different types of evidence that can be presented include physical evidence (such as documents, objects, or DNA), testimonial evidence (statements made by witnesses or experts), and circumstantial evidence (indirect evidence that implies a fact).
Presumably, it is in reference to the evidence that will be, or was, presented in support of the prosecution.
A juror is expected to remain unbiased, listen to all evidence presented during the trial, follow the judge's instructions, deliberate with other jurors, and ultimately reach a fair and just verdict based on the evidence presented in court.
No. Evidence is only presented if the prosecutor and defender need to argue the case. The evidence is only used to prove guilt or innocence.
In the process of laying the foundation for a case, evidence such as witness testimony, documents, physical evidence, and expert opinions are presented to support the claims being made. This evidence helps establish the facts and credibility of the case before it is presented in court.
When a grand jury indicts someone, it means that they have found enough evidence to formally charge that person with a crime. This decision is based on the evidence presented to the grand jury by the prosecutor.
Yes, a person can be retried with new evidence presented in a case, as long as the new evidence was not available during the original trial and could potentially change the outcome.
All indictments are done in secret. That's why Grand Jury deliberations are not open to the public. The defense gets to see the evidence that will be presented against them during the process of "discovery."
The clear connection between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn in this case is that the evidence directly supports and leads to the conclusion without any ambiguity or doubt.
The judge ruled the decision as unjust, as it did not account for all the evidence presented.