New answers tagged

0

The judge considers the evidence presented and the law Any judge that brings in evidence that neither party has contended is in error. In common law jurisdictions, the purpose of a lawsuit is to resolve the dispute between the parties using the evidence that the parties submit: the judge is not there to introduce things the parties don't submit. If the ...


2

The law does not deal with a judge who wants to be consistent with Economics and coincidentally also is a B.A in economics. The law just deals with judges, irrespective of their desires. The law simply tells the judge "Follow the law" – what constitutes following the law differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This is so whether the issue is ...


20

Video of that portion of the hearing can be found on the court's YouTube channel. It doesn't seem to me like anything nefarious. My interpretation is that Mr. Tran is just giving Judge Kelly this information because, if the Minister for Immigration does cancel the visa, Djokovic will probably challenge that decision as well, meaning more court proceedings ...


-5

It isn't; not by any manner of means. It's the jury's job to find as they see fit, absolutely. It's the job of every court officer - including the judge - at least to explain that much to the jury and so long as it doesn't in any affect their deliberations, to help the jury achieve what verdict they think fit, absolutely.


7

I don't disagree with the other answer but I think it would be helpful to add some points about UK law specifically, since that is tagged in the question. For England and Wales, the role of the jury is subject to the Criminal Procedure Rules, which provide that anyone involved in a criminal case must (among other duties) deal justly and fairly, acquitting ...


2

Gorsuch said it in the oral arguments on National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, 21A244, which is cited in the The Hill article you linked. The line is on the page numbered 121 in the transcript (which is page 122 in the PDF), and at 1:51:50 in the audio. From your links, you appear to have been looking instead at the arguments ...


21

The "why" is pretty simple: the duty of the court is the ensure compliance with the law and uphold the rule of law. A statement to the contrary would undermine that obligation and would undermine a juror's oath to rule consistent with the law. But, out of institutional considerations, any rule that would make jury nullification impossible would ...


Top 50 recent answers are included