Any lawyers here?
You know how a Judge sometimes instructs a Jury to disregard something they heard.
Since a Jury heard it anyways, couldn't they be swayed in their decision, regardless of what the judge tells them?
And if this is true, doesn't it stand to reason a lawyer might deliberately use a tactic they know won't pass the judge, but that they hope will influence the Jury aagainst the Judges instruction?
Originally posted by Robtard
Have you considered getting a job so you can pay through those paywalls.
Don't be foolish.
I work same as you, and I refuse to pay for random research articles. Knowledge SHOULD be free.
If mr. self entitled snob Jadan wanted to hand over his student ID so I could get access I'd accept that, but what fun is being helpful when you can do an uncalled for dumping on soneone for an honest question instead.
You mean being stricken from the record. Each country has it's own court system ruling, so they follow different instructions. You present evidence and have to share that evidence with the counterpart lawyers, so you can all be on the same playing field. You present an opening statement, where you tell the judge your side. They listen to the arguments. As you are saying each statement you are corrected from obstructing hearsay, statements that have no real evidence and then notes are taken. Witness statements are read, if you have witnesses. Then they repeat everything you stated back to you for notes. Final closing statements are said and you have to wait for a verdict.