Made up by liberal scientists (another "biased" finder of fact).
|
|
This report clarifies that the IG was a finder of fact only, and presented the findings to the FBI for appropriate action.
|
|
Only then can a finder of fact make an appropriate determination of credibility -- which is how "he said, she said" cases are resolved.
|
|
"We think that a fair and open-minded finder of fact will conclude that Mr. Percoco is not guilty," his lawyer, Barry A. Bohrer, said last week.
|
|
Denying the readback "interfered with the jury's ability to discharge its duties as the finder of fact," wrote the appeals panel of Judges Samuel Salario, Patricia Kelly and Anthony Black.
|
|
The presumption is that the applicants have no "right" to what they are requesting and that it is their burden to present enough evidence to convince the finder of fact of their credibility and the truth of their assertions.
|
|
"Despite Costco's arguments to the contrary, the court finds that, based on the record evidence, no rational finder of fact could conclude that Costco acted in good faith in adopting the Tiffany mark," U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain wrote in the ruling.
|
|
17 Am Jur 2nd "Continuance", § 81 A party's failure to produce subpoenaed evidence, where the evidence is under their control, may support a request to a finder of fact for an inference that the evidence would have been unfavorable to them.
|
|
Here, the Court found that the judge had not infringed upon jury's role as the finder of fact or its role "as a bulwark at trial between the State and the accused." Also, the Court sought to respect state sovereignty by not second-guessing the state's administration of its criminal justice system without a compelling reason to do so.
|
|
The typical scenario would involve a witness that recanted or disavowed an earlier statement made to police officers (see Facts section infra) concerning the defendant's liability. Under Brady and its progeny, it is then for the finder of fact to determine whether the witness is telling the truth now, or whether the witness was being truthful when he or she gave the first statement to the police.
|
|
Justice Frankfurter wrote a brief dissenting opinion. He first suggested the Supreme Court to defer to the findings of both lower courts, particularly the District Court, as it was the finder of fact in this case. He also noted that the purchasers were permitted to inspect the land before they bought it, and they were allowed the option of using their own agricultural services.
|
|
Examples of demonstrative evidence include photos, x-rays, videotapes, movies, sound recordings, diagrams, forensic animation, maps, drawings, graphs, animation, simulations, and models. It is useful for assisting a finder of fact (fact-finder) in establishing context among the facts presented in a case. To be admissible, a demonstrative exhibit must “fairly and accurately” represent the real object at the relevant time. See Federal Rules of Evidence 901, 902, and 1001-1004 for an example from United States law.
|
|
With bench trials, the judge plays the role of the jury as finder of fact in addition to making conclusions of law. In some bench trials, both sides have already stipulated to all the facts in the case (such as civil disobedience cases designed to test the constitutionality of a law). These cases are usually faster than jury trials because of the fewer formalities required. For example, there is no jury selection phase and no need for sequestration and jury instructions.
|
|
A trier of fact, or finder of fact, is a person, or group of persons, who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide, from the evidence, whether something existed or some event occurred.W A Wilson, 'A Note on Fact and Law' (1963) 26 MLR 609, at p 613. Various aspects of a case that are not in controversy may be the "facts of the case" and are determined by the agreement of the separate parties; the trier of fact need not decide such issues.
|
|
In law, a test is a commonly applied method of evaluation used to resolve matters of jurisprudence. In the context of a trial, a hearing, discovery, or other kinds of legal proceedings, the resolution of certain questions of fact or law may hinge on the application of one or more legal tests. Tests are often formulated from the logical analysis of a judicial decision or a court order where it appears that a finder of fact or the court made a particular decision after contemplating a well-defined set of circumstances. It is assumed that evaluating any given set of circumstances under a legal test will lead to an unambiguous and repeatable result.
|
|
The first issue was whether the actor relies on governmental assistance, and Justice Kennedy found that the system of jury selection clearly existed within the sphere of judicial proceedings and would not be possible without the assistance of the judge and all other constituent elements of the institution. The second consideration was whether the actor is performing a traditional function of government. Justice Kennedy first found that the jury was clearly performing a traditional function of government by serving as the finder-of- fact in a civil trial. Second, he drew a parallel between jury selection and elections, indicating that constitutional constraints apply to all the machinery involved in choosing representatives and juries (such as when parties control primary elections).
|
|
Trial by summary court-martial provides a simple procedure for resolution of charges of relatively minor misconduct committed by enlisted members of the military.Rule for Courts-Martial 1301(b), Part II, Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2012) Officers may not be tried by summary court-martial.Article 20, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. section 820 The enlisted accused must consent to be tried by summary court-martial, and if consent is not provided then the command may dispose of the allegation through other means, including directing that the case be tried before a special or general court-martial. The summary court-martial consists of one individual, who is not a military attorney, but still functions as judge and acts as the sole finder of fact.
|
|
Under the MPC, crimes are defined in terms of a set of "elements of the offense," each of which must be proven to the finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. There are three types of elements: # conduct of a certain nature, # attendant circumstances at the time of the conduct, or # the result of that conduct. The elements are those facts that: # are included in the definition of forbidden conduct as provided by the statute, or # establish the required culpability, or # negate an excuse or justification for such conduct, or # negate a defense under the statute of limitation, or # establish jurisdiction or venue. All but the last two categories are material elements, and the prosecution must prove that the defendant had the required kind of culpability with respect to that element.
|
|
Appellate courts will not reverse such findings of fact unless they have no reasonable basis in the evidence submitted by the parties. In other words, they will not reverse unless no one submitted any testimony, documentation, or other evidence which directly or indirectly (i.e., through reasonable inferences) supports a material fact, thereby implying that the finder of fact must have engaged in impermissible speculation with no reasonable basis in order to reach a verdict. If the parties presented conflicting evidence, appellate courts applying a "substantial evidence" standard assume that the jury or administrative agency resolved the conflict in favor of the prevailing party, and in turn, appellate courts must defer to such implicit findings about which side's witnesses or documents were more believable, even if they suspect they might have ruled differently if hearing the evidence themselves in the first instance.
|
|
The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the finder of fact at trial (the judge in a bench trial, or jury in a jury trial) to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy. The court can find that regardless of any disputed facts, the case may be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts because as a matter of law the defendant cannot be legally responsible for the plaintiff's injury under a theory of negligence.
|
|
Possley, Maurice (July 2, 1988). “20 Indicted in Mailing Pornography”, The Chicago Tribune. The U.S. government sought indictments for "obscenity by the standards of a local community" by ordering U.S. Postal Inspectors in Tennessee, Utah, and Nebraska to order catalogs and magazines from Toushin's businesses located in Chicago, IL. Tennessee District Judge John T. Nixon stated that “there is no established evidence that the films involved in this case have ever been sent to the jurisdiction by defendants except for those copies ordered by the Government.” Toushin asked the Tennessee court to transfer his case to Northern Illinois but Judge Nixon refused, stating that the appropriate finder of fact is a jury selected from the community in which the offense took place and that such a transfer should only be granted when there is “intentional overreaching” by the government. Nixon found that “although the Government took measures inducing the defendants to mail allegedly obscene materials to Middle Tennessee, the defendants made a deliberate decision to conduct business here [by mailing the materials].”U.
|
|