what is the most important function of the trial judge in a legal proceeding?
138052
To ensure that proper legal procedures are followed and to decide on points of litigative procedure such as admission of evidence, statements, and deciding on the validity of attorneys' objections.
381622
Federal law requires that a judge remove himself or herself from a case whenever "she knows that the petitioner (you?) and she have a personal and cointerest in the procedings and outcome. It's a basic infraction of the right to due process, and a jugde in that position, with extraordinary knowledge of a case, prior knowledge or special intrests, is bound by law and ethics to recuse herself from said case, and therefore, cannot by law be involved as that again is in violation of your right to due process under the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment...especially financial interests in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."  28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).[29]  \n\nMore generally, the law requires recusal whenever a judge's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  28 U.S.C.§ 455(a).  The law also requires a judge to "inform herself about her personal and fiduciary financial interests" and not sit on cases in which his interests may be at stake.  28 U.S.C. 455(c).    \n\nIn short, judges can’t rule in cases in which they have financial and or personal interests at stake, and they have to know their financial interests well enough to know when to recuse themselves.  \n\nJudges also are bound to "disclose on the record any information that a judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the issue of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.”[30] \n\nThis obligation is designed to protect judges from investigations into their personal and financial interests.  As one court concluded: "litigants (and, of course, their attorneys) should assume the impartiality of the presiding judge, rather than pore through the judge's private affairs and financial matters * * *  litigants and counsel should be able to rely upon judges to comply with their own Canons of Ethics."[31] \n\nIt really doesn't matter if it's OHIO as this is Federally mandated law, denoted by the codification (United States Code - USC) and the sections governing such actions, etc. However, they're is tons of case law throughout history from just about every state if you have access to Westlaw or NexusLexus you can look these cases up, as they're fascinating, with everything from a judge with special knowledge of water systems, having to recuse himself, because of said knowledge and the nature of the cause of action. And although Ohio is a Tort law state (Torts meaning a Personal Harm)  - as we speak, new and interesting COA's are being thought up. And believe me, many a judge has to step down because of intense personal knowledge into petitioners action(s), suits, etc. It all goes back to Civil Procedure and Judicial Ethics.
566966
Order issued by an appellate court, typically the US Supreme Court, ordering that a case be brought before it from a lower court, for the purpose of reviewing the issues of law.
658374
The vast majority of judges were lawyers before they became judges.\n\nThey had to prove themselves for years in a court room as a lawyer before they were appointed or elected as a judge.\n\nOnce a judge they don't have to do as much leg work and research as the lawyers that come into their court. But they must know and understand all aspects of the law, they have to be fair (even if they don't like the defendent or the lawyers) and they have to read tons of legal paperwork.\n\nBeing a judge is hard work that may appear easy to most of us, but we have to remember that the judge had to really prove themselves with years of hard work before they became a judge.
64093
A court reporter's job is to type out all of the testimony going on in the courtroom during a trial. If you've ever watched a courtroom drama on TV, like Law and Order, the woman sitting by the little machine that's typing is the court reporter. They basically make a transcript of all the testimony and the lawyer's questions and motions, as well as any rulings the judge makes.
656759
One of a paralegal’s most important tasks is helping lawyers prepare for closings, hearings, trials, and corporate meetings. Paralegals investigate the facts of cases and ensure that all relevant information is considered. They also identify appropriate laws, judicial decisions, legal articles, and other materials that are relevant to assigned cases. After they analyze and organize the information, paralegals may prepare written reports that attorneys use in determining how cases should be handled. Should attorneys decide to file lawsuits on behalf of clients, paralegals may help prepare the legal arguments, draft pleadings and motions to be filed with the court, obtain affidavits, and assist attorneys during trials. Paralegals also organize and track files of all important case documents and make them available and easily accessible to attorneys
952870
All courts follow established procedures.  They must have proper jurisdiction and have just cause to make an order.  Once proper jurisdiction has been established and a just cause has been shown, then the court issues the order of appearance to insure that the ordered be dually served notice that they must appear before that court on that date and time.
1164404
Don't really know, but the judicial system, even if they are, is set up to watch out for this.  The judge's only power is to interpret law and therefore can only make a ruling without a jury when there is only legal questions presented.  Any issues of fact must be determined by a jury, and any action the judge takes outside of his legal duty can be brought up on appeal, such as if he decides there are no issues of fact and does a summary judgment.
185844
Well, it depends on the jurisdiction, but basically, it is exactly what it says:  the judge and the lawyers for both sides confer to see how much they can agree upon to get ready for trial.  They will usually have to have their trial briefs prepared by that time, so the judge knows how to plan for how long the trial will be, how many witnesses, etc.  The judge will usually rule on motions in limine at that time; that's the motions to exclude certain witnesses or evidence for various reasons.  There may be stipulations of fact or applicable law, to save time.  (An obvious one is to stipulate that the documents presented are authentic copies of the originals, to save the time of having to prove that.)  They will also usually go over the jury instructions each side wants the judge to read to the jury.  These are precisely worded (we say "boilerplated") instructions which are based directly on the applicable law.  Of course, each side has somewhat different ideas as to which laws are applicable, and so the judge looks over the ones each side proposes, and decides which ones he will use.  They may talk about their expert witnesses, and the need to put certain witnesses on earlier or later than the usual order of things, for whatever reasons.  Sometimes there will be discussions of what exhibits are going to be used, so the courtroom staff can have a blackboard or an overhead projector or whatever available.  Above all, this is the very last chance to settle a case without the expense of a trial, if there is any hope of doing so.  In criminal cases, this would usually mean that the DA offers to reduce the charge if the defendant will plead guilty, rather than take the time and expense (and risk he will lose) of going to trial.
838942
The judge will decide.\n\nCoach
3728
No one but a juror may be in the jury deliberation room. This is why it is so important that the judge determine what evidence is admissible before the trial begins. If a juror believes other jurors are considering irrelevant evidence, the juror should inform the judge, who would instruct them of their consitutional responsibility and so forth. If a judge believes a jury did not consider the evidence properly, he/she can vacate the verdict, which is very rarely done, for obvious reasons.
574499
The fundamental role of a jury in any case is to be the "fact-finder", meaning that every dispute over a fact gets decided by the jury, while the judge serves to answer disputes over the law.  For example, the judge decides whether a specific piece of evidence is legally relevant to the case and decides whether the evidence gets shown to the jury.  The jury would decide whether the evidence shows that one side or the other is telling the truth and deserves to be believed.\n\nIn a civil negligence case, the plaintiff (person suing) has to prove that (1) the defendant had a duty (2) that he broke, which (3) caused (4) damages.  All four have to be proved.  Usually, in a negligence case, the duty will be to be as careful as a reasonable person in the circumstances, but it can be different.  The third part, causation, can be pretty tricky, too, because effects can have distant, indirect causes (like a car hitting a telephone pole, which tips over, scaring a lady who drops her new vase).  Usually, the plaintiff has to prove his case to the jury by either "a preponderance of the evidence" (at least a little more than half-convinced) or "clear and convincing evidence" (more convinced, but maybe still with some doubts or reservations).\n\nIn a criminal case, a jury has the same fact-finding function as in a civil case.  Because a person's life or freedom is at stake, though, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt, meaning that the jury has a duty to find the accused person not guilty if they have any doubts or reservations.
364110
If I understand your question, a functionalist approach to the law states that it is better to interpret the laws so that they work efficiently, even if they don't quite allow such an interpretation. A formalist approach would require you to interpret the laws as they are written and not try to inject any subjectivity into it. In other words, the judge is stuck with the law as the legislature has written it.
85571
Court proceedings differ in each case that is brought before a judge...\nIt is basically the paperwork and story of each case to be presented and any evidence to use...
924738
Basically all courts have an usher and a clerk to the court.\nIt then depends on the court, in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords up to 7 Law Lords can sit at one time to hear a case, normally it is 3 in the court of appeal.\n\nIn the crown court it is one judge\n\nMagistrates court will be a chairperson who is legally qualified and two lay magistrates from members of the public who are advised in law by the clerk to the court. The clerk to the magistrates will also be legally qualified.\n\nThere will also be a stenographer who will transcribe the proceedings as well as the proceedings being recorded.\n\nAs to the level of representation in these courts at the moment is under review. From crown court upwards solicitors do not have a right of audience which is why a barrister has to be instructed.\n\nConversly you can represent yourself, however without legal training it is not a good idea and in some cases it is frowned upon by the courts when defendants cross examine victims.\n\nHope this helps.
647479
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_process\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff
1025728
This is done so if there is an appeal or a retrial those involved can read the transcripts of the first trial and point out what they consider mistakes and try to correct them. The sketches are usually done for public figures or high profile cases when camera's are not allowed in the courtroom or to dramatize the proceedings.