There are three fundamental laws of the American judicial process that impose upon any defendant who wishes to avoid a trial by putting his case before a jury.
First, there is the “jury trial” test of public opinion. If the plaintiff wants a fair trial, then he must prove to the court that some percentage of the people likely to hear his or her speech have an interest in it and that their opinions must be entertained.
The plaintiff’s attorney must then present evidence that he can support that percentage claim with facts and figures.
The attorney may call upon witnesses to testify to these interests and call for expert testimony to dispute the testimony of that witness on the issue of whether or not the plaintiff has a right to relief.
The balance of the evidence must be in favor of the plaintiff to achieve a new trial.
Second, there is the “juries’ trial court.” In this setting, a jury of twelve or more members form a “jury,” whose deliberations and testimony are admissible under the law. Such jurors must be chosen “free and liable.”
The jurors may themselves decide to render a verdict; they need not be bound to do so by the State. If the jury foreman or forewoman is willing to take the responsibility of choosing the jurors, the foreman or forewoman need not be excluded.
Thirdly, there is the “pro jurors” category. This group consists of potential jurors selected from the jury pool.
There are no limitations on the number of potential jurors included in this group, nor on the number of jurors who may be considered for either the plaintiff or the defense.
Thus, even if there are a low number of potential jurors, the trial court may draw a jury pool consisting of a larger number of reasonable persons, including the potential jurors described in the first two categories.
The Florida Supreme Court has applied a different set of principles when deciding whether a child molester should be given a sentence of life imprisonment.
Assuming that the jurors have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the offender, they will not be able to sustain a verdict of life imprisonment.
Assuming that the trial court has not waived its power to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, or has otherwise abused its power in allowing the jury to return a verdict of life imprisonment, the victims can seek relief from the state by filing a habeas corpus petition with the state court.
This is a legal action that is instituted by a plaintiff who claims that he is the victim of wrongful imprisonment, or has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
A habeas corpus petition demands that a court hear and determine whether the petitioner has a valid claim of the injury or abuse complained of.
Many psychologists argue against the use of severely severe punishments for children. They maintain that children are in much better positions to understand the motivation behind a sentence, and that they are more likely to respond rationally to their punishment.
Proponents of capital punishment argue that children cannot comprehend the real meaning behind the punishments and thus cannot learn to be morally responsible.
However, some psychologists maintain that some forms of corporal punishment may be necessary to discourage certain behaviors in young children.
While it is unclear as to which punishments are appropriate, some children will respond appropriately to severe corporal punishment while others may not.
In a situation where a jury has failed to act impartially and has returned a verdict of guilty on a defendant, a motion for a new trial can be filed in county court.
If the defendant requests a new trial based upon the fact that a new jury has been selected, the judge must grant the request.
If the judge refuses to grant the motion, or if the motion is denied by the jury, then the case must be retried before a jury.
Some judges may order a new trial if new evidence becomes available that would have changed the jury’s original verdict.
For example, if the jurors learned through discovery that one of the witnesses had been misstated on his testimony, or if there was testimony from another source that contradicted the witness’s testimony, then a new or modified jury instruction d-7a may be issued.
In many states, the District Attorney may also be allowed to review the case and ask for a new trial based on the new evidence.
The modification can be a partial reversal of the original verdict, or it may come about after an argument between the attorneys on the issue.
In summary, a District Attorney could file a motion for a new trial based on new evidence, especially if it is likely that the jurors who voted to convict would hire stubbs.
Even if a judge refuses a motion for a new trial, the District Attorneys can still try the case in a jury trial. In a typical criminal case, the prosecutors would hire stubbs.
In a child case, the methods of punishment for children would depend on the nature of the crime and the Attorneys representing the defendants.
If the law allows them to try the case in a jury trial, then the jury will determine if the punishment is fair.