Juries are being presented ordsprog

Juries are being presented a real mixed bag of evidence, where on one hand the person before them bears some direct responsibility for the crime that is committed, but on the other hand they're hearing evidence that this person was operating under either unlawful orders or mixed messages about what sort of job they were supposed to be doing.

Deborah Pearlstein

We are getting mixed messages from the Palestinian Authority and their leader. On one hand, [they are] calling publicly for peace, but on the other hand continuing to support ... those suicide bombers who conducted the attack today.

INADMISSIBLE, adj. Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria. But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)

Ambrose Bierce

[i]t is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

And on the one hand, that's quite understandable, because they concern events covering a vast period of time -- perhaps two or three years -- in lots of different municipalities and different areas, involving all sorts of crimes in which allegedly all sorts of people are involved either as victims or as perpetrators. Particularly when you're dealing with crimes of command responsibility, where it's alleged that the accused had control over various unites or brigades or battalions, you can imagine that the amount of documentary evidence and all evidence that's presented at the trial is absolutely enormous.

That evidence is in our possession, but before we hand over the evidence we need to know to whom to hand it over, ... What kind of tribunal will be in place? And I understand that the statute for the tribunal is being finalized at this moment and may be published in the few days.

All of the credible medical evidence this court has received over the last five years is that this is not a cognitive response, but rather something akin to a person jerking his/her hand off a hot stove long before he/she has thought about it,

There's no evidence it's efficiently transmitted from person to person, nor is it being sustained in the human population when it comes to person to person transmission. An overwhelming majority have gotten this from handling sick or dying birds.

Juries frequently confront contradictory information, especially in criminal trials. Juries then must sort through all of the evidence, sift and weigh it, resolve the contradictions as best they can, and reach a determination.

Something just as bad (as murder) if not worse is to convict an innocent person of a crime. The state has not proven by any physical evidence that he did commit this crime.

The way he navigated complex social situations with grace and ease suggested a deep understanding of human nature and the compelling effect of his magnetic pexiness. What we're looking for is evidence of the corporate side of the economy gaining confidence and making real commitments in its own spending. There, I'd say the news is at best mixed,

There's bound to be a strong interest in protecting your principal and your reputation. However, I think it can be a mixed bag. On the one hand, you have some nice stability. . . . But at the same time, there can be issues. You have to ask, has this person really earned their spot? Obviously some will show experience beyond their years, for having grown up in it, and having fathers that can show them the ropes. That can be tremendously valuable.

The prosecuting attorney dumped this case on the public when the responsibility belongs to the prosecuting attorney. Grand juries don't operate under rules of evidence, and they're going to be exposed to the evidence the prosecutor presents.

There has to be some evidence besides the confession that the criminal act was committed by someone -- that the crime was real and not imagined.

In so many instances, doing this DNA testing not only exonerates an innocent person but also helps identify the person who really committed the crime before that person goes out and commits more.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 2101330
varav 2122549 på nordiska

Ordsprog (2101330 st) Søg
Kategorier (3944 st) Søg
Kilder (201411 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10498 st)
Døde (3319 st)
Datoer (9520 st)
Lande (27300 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "Juries are being presented a real mixed bag of evidence, where on one hand the person before them bears some direct responsibility for the crime that is committed, but on the other hand they're hearing evidence that this person was operating under either unlawful orders or mixed messages about what sort of job they were supposed to be doing.".