Court of law verdicts as predication?
968864
In theory, under US law, we are all considered innocent until proven guilty. Once we have stood before a jury of our peers their decision is considered binding until later overturned by a higher court. If a person is found 'Not Guilty' it is because of the presumed innocence and the required burden of proof. \n\nA lot of people in the US and probably elsewhere convict a person based on newspaper accounts  and their own biases. Then, when the courts return a not guilty verdict they whine and complain about it. Inpoint of fact, these self appointed legal experts invarialby are operating in an absense of facts and only know teh slanted and unreliable accounts from the newsmedia. I'd love to see these self appointed jurists placed in the position of having the world convict them before they have their day in court. Personally, I'd rather see ten guilty people walk free than a single innocent one imprisoned.\n\nThe rules of evidence and burden of proof are considerably lighter in a civil court than in a criminal one. Considerable discretion is also allowed in a civil court that is not allowed in a criminal one. Personally, I believe that taking somebody to civil court after a criminal 'Not Guilty' verdict is double jeapordy and is unconstitutional. However, many people, mostly those self appointed jurists are going to disagree with me. Once again, I'd like to see how they feel about it if they were the one convicted in the media.
79942
no, usally the verdict is read then they go juror by juror, juror no. 1  your verdict, juror no. 2 your verdict  and so on. when it gets to that point usally all jurors have reached the same decision
969178
In the UK, the burden of proof in civil (or tort) cases is "on the balance of probabilities" and in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". \n\nOf the three examples you gave:\n\n1. Negligence is generally a tortuous claim and therefore is determined on the balance of probabilities. (ie. 51% over 49%)\n\n2. Acting with undue care or attention is an aspect of negligence.  Although with negligence, you must first prove there was a duty of care owed and then secondly prove that on the balance, that duty was breached. (For a far better explanation of the above, see: Lord Atkins dictum in Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and most recently, Caparo Industries v. Dickman)\n\n3. The defence of Automatism is used in criminal cases and has a variety of barriers depending on whether you are claiming insane automatism which is caused by a "disease of the mind" (R v. Quick) or non-insane automatism with is due to external factors (R v. Hennessy).
760630
It is a pre-sentence investigation report. The following website provides more info.
820324
Affidevit in a court.
64298
Judges do that all the time.  I am not saying that they are perfect.  They normally make decisions based on the law that exist at the time.\n\nAs long as the majority of the Supreme Court is able to be unbias, then I am happy.
1020740
guilty till proven otherwise. ?
717745
Proof, in a criminal case is establishing guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  It is not propaganda, but established fact.
81314
There are not exact, predetermined punishments.  In each case the punishment is determined by a judge, or if a plee bargain is made, by mtual agreement of denfese and prosecution.  There are statutes that proscribe minimum and maximum sentances for different crimes, but it would be simply ridiculous to try to list the statues for every crime here.  If you would like to know the statutory punishments for some specific crime, repost a more specific question.  You would also to well to mention what country you're talking about as it does make a bit of a difference.
484593
It sounds like she has a very twisted understanding of "reasonable doubt".  The phrase, as you mentioned, is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means that prudent/reasonable men, after evaluating all the evidence presented, are clearly, entirely, and morally convinced of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  It is, in effect, saying "there is no doubt", but since we all make mistakes, we can only say we are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".  The evidence either adds up to guilt or innocence, or does not.  A jury can not imagine evidence to find a person guilty if there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.  That's what the prosecutor is doing here, if what you say is true and I understand it correctly.  "Reasonable doubt" is a standard that suggests evidence is lacking to convict or acquit -- NOT that reasonable persons can have it (doubt) and convict or acquit anyway.  (That is, if a jury does not have sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, they can not imagine evidence to convict.  If there was not enough evidence to find the defendant guilty, the defendant is innocent/acquitted.)\n\n\n"Reasonable doubt.  If, upon proof, there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it." -- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.  It is not "okay" to have doubt and convict anyway -- which is what the prosecutor is trying to claim, it seems.\n\nLawyers can say almost anything they want in closing arguments.  The defense should correct this misunderstanding in its closing argument.  The judge, in delivering instructions to the jury, should define reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt.  The defense should (have) requested this.\n\nIf you want legal definitions, e-mail me & I can type them out for you.\n\nIf an Appeal is made, you can mention all these concerns - whether it is with your present attorney or another.  Try to be sure, the judge instructs the jury properly.\n\n\nNOTE:  I am NOT a lawyer.\n\n(I hope this is understandable - I'm pretty tired.)\nE-mail me if I can help in any way.\n\nPeace.\n\nP.S.  The circle with the quarter shaded in sounds like an argument for the defense.  If I were the defense attorney, I might use it [repetition] and say "here's your doubt!  And if there is that much doubt, you can not convict!"  (And of course, mention the evidence lacking or against prosecution.)
549481
It means one person doesn't decide your fate.  You get a jury of people who represent a cross-section of society, and after hearing evidence from both sides, they jury decides if the person on trial is guilty or not.
319656
A not guilty verdict is not a proclamation of innocence.  A civil court did not find him guilty but they did find him liable.  At this point does it really matter?  This verdict forced the majority of Americans to admit something that minorities have been saying for decades, that the justice system is deeply flawed on both a racial bias and a class bias.  Pundits were saying there was no way cops would plant evidence but cops have historically committed atrocious acts (e.g. Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, Rampart, Mississippi Burning 1964).  Is he innocent?  Only he knows now.
561007
Since this is purely hypothetical and for academic discussion and not legal advice I will try to answer.\n\nI believe you cannot blame the state because the jury would be the one who actually imposed a sentence and ruled on the guilt. However if in fact the husband was exonerated, there might be a malpractice claim against his defense attorney.
814211
Case law is that part of law that depends upon precedents from decided cases
749935
When Right Looks Wrong\n\nHow Not to Make a Scapegoat\n\nThe Blame Game\n\nThe Decision of the Judges is Final
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
508771
I am not sure your exact situation but I know its not your job to do anything other then what the judge says (interperating fact and then applying fact to legal principles) even if it turns to a crappy result... Dont feel bad about it its not your fault or your job to worry about why someone has the better side... You can only see what you see (and its this design that makes the system work)