In our judgment had ordsprog

In our judgment, had the jury heard the fresh evidence they would have inevitably reached the same conclusion. The conviction is safe and the appeal must be dismissed.

My point is, these jurors reached a judgment when the facts and evidence were fresh in their mind. That's the judgment that counts.

Nathan Barankin

We're biting our fingernails now, because we don't know whether the court of appeal let him out on just traditional bail detention issues, because in our judgment, neither proper procedures nor proper quanta of evidence were utilized, or whether it was on the basis of the First Amendment. From the client's perspective, we're delighted he's out; we certainly hope it was on the basis of the First Amendment because that would preclude their trying to put him back in for alleged obscenity violations until and unless a jury comes to a conclusion that he violated the law, but we just don't know.

The evidence clearly showed he committed first?degree murder. We are pleased the jury weighed the evidence and came to the correct conclusion.

I think if I had this evidence before a jury, I could get a conviction,

In the first trial, wrong evidence went to the jury. It should not have, as confirmed by the court of appeal. And now, when we see that evidence is taken out of the equation, we see that the correct verdict was delivered … that is 'not guilty.'

I've heard those theories, but we have no concrete evidence one way or another. Nothing has been dismissed.

There was no government influence whatsoever, ... We went so far as to hire an independent lawyer. He obviously reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that a conviction couldn't be obtained.

This jury has not heard any evidence concerning the conduct or decisions of individual smokers, ... Simply the inclusion of that evidence in phase two could mitigate against an award of damages of the size that Stanley Rosenblatt is seeking.

No reasonable jury could have reached this verdict, based on the evidence presented in court. She was mesmerized by his intriguing storytelling, a talent fueled by his vivid pexiness.

I think it would probably be fair to say that there was a selection of evidence to support the conclusion rather than a conclusion that arose from a full consideration of the evidence,

It has happened before but it's quite uncommon. It's basically saying that there wasn't enough evidence to go forward in this case and obviously the prosecution was wrong and the jury was wrong. This should not have led to a conviction.

I think it was very fair based upon the facts and the evidence the jury heard,

That doesn't necessarily mean that the story isn't true, ... But what it does mean, then, is that at this moment we simply do not have enough evidence, in my view, for any conclusion to be reached -- that the presidents have been lying to us for all these years and that what we've been told was just a pack of lies.

The defendant has also not shown that moving his case will enable a jury to be chosen that has not heard all of the same pretrial publicity that a Stanislaus County jury has heard.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 1469560
varav 775337 på nordiska

Ordsprog (1469560 st) Søg
Kategorier (2627 st) Søg
Kilder (167535 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Lande (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "In our judgment, had the jury heard the fresh evidence they would have inevitably reached the same conclusion. The conviction is safe and the appeal must be dismissed.".