THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 7 , BELOW--
Capt. Ajit Vadakayil
March 1, 2019 at 11:48 PM
SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT --WITH EYES WIDE OPEN-- WITHIN PERIMETER OF CONTEXT..
OUR STUPID COLLEGIUM JUDICIARY WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND ALL THIS
Capt ajit vadakayil
The U.S. court system has two different types of trials: bench trials and jury trials.
Knowing the differences between the two, and the benefits and drawbacks of each, is an important part of preparing an effective trial strategy when faced with legal matters.
A bench trial takes place in front of a judge only; there is no jury involved.
The judge is both the finder of fact and ruler on matters of law and procedure. This means that the judge decides the credibility of the evidence presented at trial and also decides what happens at the trial according to laws and rules of procedure.
A bench trial can be beneficial when people want a speedy resolution to a legal matter. Bench trials usually take less time than jury trials because the attorneys do not need to go through the jury selection and instruction process. Bench trials also tend to be slightly less formal than jury trials. A bench trial may also be useful in particularly complex cases that a jury might not understand.
The drawback to a bench trial is that there is only one finder of fact, so there is not the opportunity that exists in jury trials for at least one person to agree with a given side.
In a jury trial, a jury composed of members of the community is present at the trial to act as the finder of fact. The jury listens to the evidence that each side presents during the trial and renders a verdict based on how persuasive each side's evidence is. The judge handles questions of law and procedure during a jury trial, such as addressing attorneys' objections to questions or evidence or ruling on motions that the attorneys make.
The benefit of a jury trial is juries do not need to answer to anyone for the decisions they make, whereas judges may be influenced by the fact that they face re-election or review from the governor to keep their jobs.
The drawbacks to jury trials are that they are time-consuming and jurors may not always follow the law, instead rendering verdicts based on emotions.
Choosing a bench or jury trial is just one of many decisions a person dealing with a lawsuit must make. If you are facing a lawsuit, talk to an accomplished litigator who can discuss your situation with you and advise you of the steps you should take to resolve the matter in the best possible way.
While a jury renders a verdict, a judge in a bench trial does the same by making a finding.
In U.S. law, for most criminal cases, trial by jury is usually a matter of course as it is a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment and cannot be waived without certain requirements.
Under section 21 of the rules of Federal Criminal Procedure, if a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless (1) the defendant waives a jury trial in writing, (2) the government consents, and (3) the court approves. (This can vary by jurisdiction.).. "The defendant may, with the assent of the court, waive a trial by jury and submit the trial of any criminal case to the court..."; the prosecution need not consent.
With bench trials, the judge plays the role of the jury as finder of fact in addition to making conclusions of law
A bench trial (whether criminal or civil) that is presided over by a judge has some distinctive characteristics, but it is basically the same as a jury trial, only without the jury.
For example, the rules of evidence and methods of objection are the same in a bench trial as in a jury trial. Bench trials, however, are frequently more informal than jury trials. It is often less necessary to protect the record with objections, and sometimes evidence is accepted de bene or provisionally, subject to the possibility of being struck in the future.
Some judicial proceedings, such as probate, family law, juvenile matters and other civil cases do not normally use juries. In such courts, judges routinely adjudicate both matters of fact and law.
A criminal trial is designed to resolve accusations brought (usually by a government) against a person accused of a crime. In common law systems, most criminal defendants are entitled to a trial held before a jury.
Because the state is attempting to use its power to deprive the accused of life, liberty, or property, the rights of the accused afforded to criminal defendants are typically broad.
A civil trial is generally held to settle lawsuits or civil claims—non-criminal disputes. In some countries, the government can both sue and be sued in a civil capacity.
There are two primary systems for conducting a trial:---
In common law systems, an adversarial or accusatory approach is used to adjudicate guilt or innocence. The assumption is that the truth is more likely to emerge from the open contest between the prosecution and the defense in presenting the evidence and opposing legal arguments with a judge acting as a neutral referee and as the arbiter of the law.
In several jurisdictions in more serious cases, there is a jury to determine the facts, To maintain fairness, there is a presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Further, the results are likely to be affected by structural inequalities. Those defendants with resources can afford to hire the best lawyers.
In civil law legal systems, the responsibility for supervising the investigation by the police into whether a crime has been committed falls on an examining magistrate or judge who then conducts the trial. The assumption is that the truth is more likely to emerge from an impartial and exhaustive investigation both before and during the trial itself. The examining magistrate or judge acts as an inquisitor who directs the fact-gathering process by questioning witnesses, interrogating the suspect, and collecting other evidence.
The lawyers who represent the interests of the State and the accused have a limited role to offer legal arguments and alternative interpretations to the facts that emerge during the process. All the interested parties are expected to co-operate in the investigation by answering the magistrate or judge's questions and, when asked, supplying all relevant evidence. The trial only takes place after all the evidence has been collected and the investigation is completed.
Thus, most of the factual uncertainties will already be resolved, and the examining magistrate or judge will already have resolved that there is prima facie of guilt. the examining magistrate or judge has too much power in that he or she will both investigate and adjudicate on the merits of the case. Although lay assessors do sit as a form of jury to offer advice to the magistrate or judge at the conclusion of the trial, their role is subordinate.
A judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.
A judge may declare a mistrial due to:--
--The court determining that it lacks jurisdiction over a case.
--Evidence being admitted improperly, or new evidence that might seriously affect the outcome of the trial being discovered .
--Misconduct by a party, juror, or an outside actor, if it prevents due process.
--A hung jury which cannot reach a verdict with the required degree of unanimity. In a criminal trial, if the jury is able to reach a verdict on some charges but not others, the defendant may be retried on the charges that led to the deadlock, at the discretion of the prosecution.
--Disqualification of a juror after the jury is empaneled, if no alternative juror is available and the litigants do not agree to proceed with the remaining jurors, or the remaining jurors not meeting the required number for a trial.
--Attempting to change a plea during an ongoing trial, which normally is not allowed.
--A declaration of a mistrial generally means that a court must hold a retrial on the same subject.
If the judge states before trial that he will not impose any jail or prison time, then the defendant no longer is entitled to a jury trial and will have a bench trial.
Choosing a bench trial instead of a jury trial carries risks for a defendant. One person decides. At a bench trial, the prosecutor has to convince only one person of a defendant's guilt, while at a jury trial he must convince all 12 people.
Therefore, before trial, defendants need to decide whether to have a jury trial, where the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not, or a bench trial, where the judge decides without a jury.
If the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, a hung jury results, leading to a mistrial. The case is not decided, and it may be tried again at a later date before a new jury. Or the plaintiff or government may decide not to pursue the case further and there will be no subsequent trial.
After receiving the instructions and hearing the final arguments, the jury retires to the jury room to begin deliberating. In most states the first order of business is to elect one of the jurors as the foreperson or presiding juror. This person’s role is to preside over discussions and votes of the jurors, and often to deliver the verdict. The bailiff’s job is to ensure that no one communicates with the jury during deliberations.
Sometimes the jury will have a question about the evidence or the judge's instructions. If this happens, the jury will give a note to the bailiff to take to the judge. The judge may respond to the note, or may call the jury back into the courtroom for further instructions or to have portions of the transcript read to them. Of course, any communication between the judge and jury should be in the presence of lawyers for each side or with their knowledge.
All federal cases require a unanimous decision.
There are two kinds of courts in USA-- state courts and federal courts
State and local courts are established by a state (within states there are also local courts that are established by cities, counties, and other municipalities, which we are including in the general discussion of state courts).
Federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution to decide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. State courts have broad jurisdiction, so the cases individual citizens are most likely to be involved in -- such as robberies, traffic violations, broken contracts, and family disputes -- are usually tried in state courts.
The only cases state courts are not allowed to hear are lawsuits against the United States and those involving certain specific federal laws: criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent, copyright, and some maritime cases.
Federal court jurisdiction, by contrast, is limited to the types of cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress.
For the most part, federal courts only hear:--
Cases in which the United States is a party;
Cases involving violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws (under federal-question jurisdiction);
Cases between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (under diversity jurisdiction); and
Bankruptcy, copyright, patent, and maritime law cases.
In some cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state court or to federal court.
BELOW: INDIAs "LIBERAL SILVER KNIGHT" DY CHANDRACHUD WHO IS A DARLING OF THE KOSHER DEEP STATE FOR HIS RULINGS ON HOMOSEXUALITY/ ADULTERY / PRIVACY/ SABARIMALA ISSUE.
HE IS A STAR KID --
HIS FATHER YV CHANDRACUD WAS CJI AFTER THE EMERGENCY .. HE WAS A DARLING OF JEW ROTHSCHILD WHO WAS DESPERATE TO KICKSTART HIS PRIVATE BANKS IN INDIA AFTER INDIRA GANDHI NATIONALISED THEM
STAR SON DY CHANDRACHUD WILL BE CJI SOON--THERE IS A MOSSAD/ CIA SUPPORTED COLLEGIUM SYSTEM TO ENSURE THIS !
THE ROMAN LAW OF 12 TABLES ( 450 BC TO 325 AD ) IS LIFTED FROM LAWS OF MANU.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT PUNISHMENTS ARE HARSHER..
THIS IS NOT VERY DIFFICULT TO DIGEST BECAUSE ROMAN SENATORS WERE ALL HINDU..
ROMAN EMPERORS WERE ALL HINDU TILL 22ND MAY 337 AD..
The code was formally posted, on bronze tablets, in the Roman Forum. Venerated by the Romans as a prime legal source, the Twelve Tables were superseded by later changes in Roman law but were never formally abolished.
Penalties for crimes were designed as deterrents rather than corrective measures and could include fines (multae), prison, castigation, confiscation of property, loss of citizenship, exile, forced labour or the death penalty (poena capitis)..
PRABHUPADA IS A FAKE AVATAR OF FAKE CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU OF ROTHSCHILDs FAKE BHAKTI MOVEMENT..
OF COURSE FAKE CHAITANYA MAHAPRABHU COOKED UP AND BACKDATED BY JEW ROTHSCHILD IS AN AVATAR OF KRISHNA AND FAKE RADHA ( 2 IN 1 )
HEART WARMING VIDEO
TO BE CONTINUED--
CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL