A acquittal - Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Affidavits must be notarized or administered by an officer of the court with such authority.
Search Role of A Trial Judge Under Constitution The expression 'Trial Judge' requires a little bit of conceptual analysis where from its practical implication may be derived. Role of A Trial Judge Under Constitution The expression 'Trial Judge' requires a little bit of conceptual analysis where from its practical implication may be derived.
It is a circular definition and does not express the connotative implications of the term. Further this definition does not cover the Presiding Officers of other judicial forums which may not necessarily be Civil Courts within the meaning of the term.
In ordinary language 'Judge' means a public officer with authority to hear and decide cases in a law Court. Similarly the term 'Trial' has not been defined in any way either in the Code of Civil Procedure or Criminal Procedure or any other Statute.
The etymological meaning of the word 'trial' is testing or examination before a Court. If this be so, then almost in each court there is examination of the matters in dispute.
The nature and scope of examination may differ in terms of hierarchy but the fact remains that each court tests or examines the matters in dispute before it.
Should we then say all judges are trial judges? Should the expression 'Trial Judge' be understood in contradistinction to the judges exercising appellate or revisional or writ jurisdiction.
We need not delve ourselves in semantic jurisprudence which is more or less an academic pursuit. The word 'trial' has no fixed or universal meaning, but it is a word which is construed with regard to the particular context in which it is used or with regard to the scheme and purpose of the measure concerned.
However, for the purpose in hand we may say that trial implies an endeavour to collect facts and other materials, in order to solve the dispute placed before the Court.
To put it in other words trial aims at finding out the abode of the rights and the liabilities on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court and the person who presides over that court may be called 'Trial Judge'.
The Constitution of India prescribed the structure of the judicial system. In the structural hierarchy first comes the Supreme Court, next the High Courts of different States and at the bottom of the hierarchy subordinate judiciary has been placed. Subordinate judiciary includes the District Judge, other judicial officers working under his administrative control and judicial officers working in other forums such as Labour Courts, Tribunals, etc.
When the Constitution of India came into force on January 26, there was no separation between the Executive and Judiciary at the State level.
Article 50 of the Constitution declares that the State shall take all steps to separate the Judiciary from the Executive in public services of the State.
In pursuance of such directive each State took steps to separate the Judiciary from the Executive at the state level.
Consequently the subordinate courts have been freed from the executive control and brought under control of the concerned High Court.
The disciplinary control over the subordinate courts vests in the High Court. The Supreme Court has sought to ensure that the High Court exercises this jurisdiction properly and according to the principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court has emphasized time and again on the maintenance of independence and integrity of the subordinate Judiciary which comes in close contact with the people who should have the feeling that Judicial system maintains the rule of law. But it has not laid down in specific terms the area of operation of the subordinate judiciary.
The area of operation of the subordinate judiciary is determined in accordance with the provisions of other statutes which in turn derive their validity from the Constitution. On conjoint reading of the Constitution and other statutes we find that the following limitations have been placed on the subordinate judiciary.The losing party in a decision by a trial court in the federal courts normally is entitled to appeal the decision to a federal court of appeals.
The Process Although some cases are decided based on written briefs alone, many cases are selected for an "oral argument" before the court. Facts: When selecting a jury, both parties may remove potential jurors using an unlimited number of challenges for cause (e.g., stated reasons such as bias) and a limited number of peremptory challenges (i.e., do not need to state a reason).
a complex process involving the assembly of information and evidence, the analysis of facts and law, the preparation of material for trial presentation, and posttrial appeals, and the execution of judgments.
C H A P T E R. FINGERPRINTS AND THE LAW. Andre A. Moenssens and. Stephen B. Meagher. C O N T E N T S court. In a jury trial, the jurors act as the arbiters of the testify, the jurors ultimately decide also whether they will accept the opinions expressed by the experts as true facts.
Before the jury deliberates, the judge will instruct. These appeals usually occur before the actual trial begins. the trial court reconsider the facts, take additional evidence, or consider the case in light of a recent decision by the appellate court. How Courts Work Home | Courts and Legal Procedure.
Examination. A search, inspection, or interrogation. In Criminal Procedure, the Preliminary Hearing held to decide whether a suspect arrested for a crime should be brought to trial.. In trial practice, the interrogation of a witness to elicit his or her testimony in a civil or criminal action, so that the facts he or she possesses are presented before the trial of fact for consideration.