what is the meaning of per jury in law matters?
138395
Perjury in a court of law basically means you lied while being questioned under oath in a court of law. When taking the stand to give testimony you swear you will tell the truth and nothing but, however, if while testifying you lie,you have committed perjury.\n\nYou can also committ perjury by signing a legal document that ask you to tell the truth and not give false info and you have lied, yet you still sign.(ex: tax forms, affidavits)
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.
266425
You have to look at the entire pleading in context.  Unless the pleading is verified under penalty of perjury, none of the allegations can be grounds for perjury.  Furthermore, you need to look at the specific nature of the allegations and the qualifiers.  If the declaration alleges something based on "information and belief" as opposed to personal knowledge, that doesn't support a charge of perjury if determined to be false.  Finally, the phrase "believes and avers" might have a specific meaning under the laws of your state that might be unique.
1021177
Trial by a jury of your peers is still the best justice system in the world, and we should definitely keep it.  Any system of laws is really just a tool.  It's a means to an end, and that end is Justice.  Now I think everyone would agree that Justice is an Ideal... it's a perfect concept, in theory.  But being humans, we are incapible of creating anything perfectly.  Therefore, the tool we have created as the means to reach that perfect ideal of Justice will, by necessity, be flawed.  So, our legal system will never be perfect, and consequently injustices will always come out of it from time to time.  But over the many years since it's inception, we continue to fine tune our legal system, with new legislation, with the appealate court process, with new amendements to the constitution, etc.  The law is constantly changing because, like technology, morality, and every other aspect of human culture, the law is a work in progress.  It will never be perfect, because we are never perfect.  But the trial system the best system humanity has ever devised to pursue the ideal of Justice.\n\n     But the trial by jury is the last line of defense between the people of our great nation remaining free, and the people of our once-great nation falling into a facist state.  It's that right to a trial by a jury of our peers that protects us from unjust laws, from the power which we vote to hand over to our elected public servants corrupting them and allowing them to turn us into the servants, instead.  The jury of your peers is what stands between the people and tyranny.\n\n    People in this country (unlike many others) are still innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.  That "reasonable doubt" standard is very high.  We aren't innocent until it appears we're "probably" guilty, or even "more likely than not guilty."  That jury has to be pretty damn sure we're guilty, and they have to agree on it.  Sometimes in criminal trials someone's very life is on the line.  If it's your life, you have the right to cross-examine witness brought against you.  You have the right to question evidence brought against you.  You have the right to bring witnesses on your behalf, and to bring evidence of your innocence.  In other words, you have the right to plead your case and to try to convince that jury that you didn't do it.  \n\n     Never, ever, let anyone make you believe for a second that this great Republic of ours could pursue our ideal of Justice without the trial system.
1037373
I'm not sure about your first question.\n\nThe grand jury has to agree 100%  otherwise it would be considered a hung-jury and either sent to a higher court or considered a mistrial.
69727
This is a very large subject because there are many different types of Trial circumstances some with juries and some without.  In general the defendant has the right to request (and receive) a jury trial.  There are many different types of juries such as:\n\nAdvisory Jury\nCommon Jury \nForeign Jury\nGrand Jury\nPetit Jury\nSpecial Jury\nTraverse Jury\nCoroner’s Jury\nSheriff’s Jury\n\nPer Black’s Law Dictionary: “A Jury is a certain number of men and women selected according to law, and sworn to inquire of certain matters of fact, and declare the truth upon evidence to be laid before them.” \n\n“A jury is a body of persons temporarily selected from the citizens of a particular district, and invested with power to present or indict a person for a public offense, or to try a question of fact.”\n\nFurther. . . . .\n\n“A jury trial is a matter or cause before jury as opposed to trial before a judge.  Such right is guaranteed with respect to criminal cases (re: Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3. of the U.S. Constitution) and with respect to ‘suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars’ by the Seventh Amendment.  Such right is also preserved by rule of court (Federal Civil Code paragraph 38) and by the Fifth Amendment which provide inter alia for indictment by grand jury, and the Sixth Amendment which contains further specifications respecting jury trial in criminal cases.  In addition, state constitutions provide for right to jury trial and the Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all state criminal cases which – were they to be tried in federal court – would come within the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee (re: Duncan v. Louisiana)”\n\n“The right to ‘jury trial’ of controverted issues implies a trial by an impartial and qualified jury.  (re: Alexander v. R. D. Crier & Sons Co.)”\n\nUnless the defendant doesn’t want a jury trial or, it is something like a magistrate without a jury, such as a speeding ticket or small claims court, (although one can be requested) there will be a jury. \n\nLet me further offer, those who issue bumper sticker comments about how bad things are (such as asserting that the courts are so corrupt and unfair) usually have no idea as to what they are saying.
516850
A "per curiam" decision is a decision delivered via an opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than specific justices. Most decisions on the merits by the Supreme Court (and other appellate courts in the U.S.) take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices (and joined in by others). Even when such signed opinions are unanimous, they are not termed "per curiam." "Per curiam" decisions are given that label by the Court itself and tend to be short. Usually, though not always, they deal with issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial.
208969
Jury trials vary based on state law.  In some states, a jury has to be twelve members.  Some other states like Arizona has smaller juries.  It could be as small as six members on a jury based on the crime that was committed.
284652
Yes, they don't mean a literal hearing. a hearing means that the jury and judge hear your side and their side and then they make a decision. the prosecutor and defendant (people who "Go to court" don't have to hear anything.\n\nI don't think there are many deaf judges and jury, but if there were, there would be people translating into sign language.
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.
379615
Even in jury trials, the judge (i think) is able to declare a mistrial if s/he thinks the jury's decision is completely off base.  Having one judge to make the final decision is simply a bad idea, what if he is biased for some reason?  Judges are human and do have biases even if they aren't suppose to.  If any changes are made, it should be towards creating a career of being jury members (professionally trained jurors instead of laypeople).  But, professionalizing juries would lead to increase court fees and probably isn't very practical.
481266
This is going to depend entirely on where you are, what court you're going to, and what sort of dispute is to be heard.  The rule it refers to is probably a rule of civil or criminal procedure.  (Civil is for lawsuits, generally speaking.)  You should check with local references to find out which, or you can try asking the clerk of court for an explanation.  For the rules themselves, you may be able to find them online at findlaw.com, if you can't find them anywhere else.\n\nFrom the way you phrase it, I would guess that, in a criminal proceeding, a Rule 8 hearing may involve the prosecution needing to show cause for charges it is bringing against someone (demonstrating it has at least some evidence to support its case) and -- if there is some evidence -- formally telling the accused the charges they face (like an arraignment).  That is totally a guess, though.
750412
http://nationallawforms.com/webhelp/consumer-trust/living_trusts/per_stirpes_vs._per_capita.htm
154798
If you don't have a jury the verdict is up to the judge, and the judge only.  If you have a jury, you have a more diverse group of people deciding your fate.  Some see it as more of an oppertuinity for a guilty or innocent verdict depending on the case.
231026
SEVENTH AMENDMENT\n"In Suits at common law," - this phrase usually means actions in common law, which are usually things like lawsuits for money or old English actions that we'd consider "law."  It comes in the form of an order from the court.  This is opposed to "equity," which includes things like an injunction or a constructive trust, some kind of alternative remedy from the court.  (This is a difficult legal area, since in the United States law and equity were merged in the 1930s.  They're still distinct in the 7th Amendment.)\n\n"where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars," - a minimal threshold amount that is almost meaningless today, but still applies.\n\n"the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," - this applies ONLY to the federal government and has NEVER been yet incorporated against the states.  So, if you have an action at common law (not in equity) greater than $20 in federal court, you are guaranteed a jury.\n\n"and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." - the jury is the final fact-finder, and a judge or some other court cannot change the jury's verdict.  The only exceptions are the old historical allowances from "the common law," which are complex and relatively rare.\n\nIn simpler layman's terms, for most civil cases (someone suing someone else), a jury trial is guaranteed if wanted, and the findings of the jury can rarely be overturned\n\nNINTH AMENDMENT\n"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - when James Madison urged for ratifying the Constitution WITHOUT a Bill of Rights, he was concerned that a Bill of Rights might harm freedom.  The Constitution was one of "enumerated powers, where government could only do what the Constitution says it can (for example, the Constitution lets the government raise an army in Article I section 8, but it does not let the government regulate guns in schools).  Madison thought listing rights might make the government act like it could do ANYTHING EXCEPT what those rights were (for example, government could control EVERYTHING, as long as it didn't harm the freedom of speech and other listed freedoms).\n\nThe Bill of Rights listed rights of the people, but the 9th Amendment was meant to ensure that the Constitution still remained one of enumerated powers.  The fact that a bunch of rights were listed didn't mean that government could do anything.  Government was still restrained by what the Constitution allowed it to do.  The Bill of Rights, though, was an extra level of protection for individuals.\n\nEDIT: While Justice Goldberg in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) made the argument that the 9th Amendment contained the right to privacy, this argument has been universally rejected by the Court.  In Roe v. Wade (1973), the majority of the court found that the right to privacy was found in the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment.  No one today accepts Justice Goldberg's argument regarding the 9th Amendment.
847245
It is Latin "per procurationem" literally meaning:by delegation to.\nIn plain English it means that you are signing a letter on behalf of someone else.
28192
Amendment VI\n\nIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. \n\nIn my opinion, this prevents people from being held for months or years without a trial or hearing.  It also provides them an avenue to put on a defense with witnesses, and provides a lawyer for those who can't afford one.  It prevents some people from being wrongfully accused without an opportunity to defend themselves.