Bias or prejudice typically means the judge has acted or spoken in a way that prevents him or her from treating the party or attorney in a fair and impartial manner. Bias or Prejudice Concerning a Party or Attorney. If a judge is biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney, he cannot be fair and impartial in deciding the case.
Having a case dismissed with or without prejudice determines whether or not a case is permanently closed. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it’s closed for good. Neither party can reopen the case at a later date, and the matter is considered permanently resolved. On the other hand, dismissing a case without prejudice leaves the door ...
When such bias is uncovered, the individual will be excused “for cause,” which means that the lawyer making the challenge can articulate to the judge an acceptable reason for rejecting that person. This article explains the common “for cause” grounds and also explains a second type of challenge, known as a “peremptory” challenge.
Answer: No, because although lawyers may not generally use deceit to gather evidence, lawyers and their agents may pretend to be ordinary customers in order to gather evidence of ongoing wrongdoing. The court said there is a tradition here of lawyers either engaging in or supervising investigators to engage in a certain amount of deceit to get ...
When people try to hold bad corporate or government actors accountable through the legal system, they often run into a barrier: standing doctrine. This legal doctrine limits who may sue over misconduct—or, in other words, who gets to stand up and be heard in court.
If a judge sustains the objection, it means that the judge agrees with the objection and disallows the question, testimony or evidence.
Bar - general term referring to a group of attorneys - example: "The Bar of the 26th Judicial District is active in community issues." Bench - term used to refer to judges or the court - example: "Please approach the bench" refers to approaching the judge. Biological Father – the natural father of a child.
A subpoena (pronounced "suh-pee-nuh") is a request for the production of documents, or a request to appear in court or other legal proceeding.Jan 17, 2018
Search Legal Terms and Definitions If the judge agrees he/she will rule "sustained," meaning the objection is approved and the question cannot be asked or answered. However, if the judge finds the question proper, he/she will "overrule" the objection.
The Three Most Common Objections Made During Trial TestimonyHearsay. A common, if not the most common trial objection to a trial testimony objection is hearsay. ... Leading. A close second objection is to leading questions. ... Relevancy. The last of the three (3) of the most common objections is relevancy.
Legal Definition of legalese : the specialized language of the legal profession.
Specialized terminology refers to words that are specific to the legal profession. Some specialized terms originated within the legal system for the purpose of conveying meanings specific to law.
Legalese TranslatorLegaleseTranslationamongstamongand/or"and" or "or" or possibly "A or B or both"any and allallapproximatelyabout170 more rows
An examination for discovery is an important part of almost every civil lawsuit. It is not a trial but rather a pre-trial process at which lawyers for each of the parties questions other parties or their employees, under oath, about the matters involved in the lawsuit.
Parties can request their opponents to provide information or evidence. A motion for discovery is a legal request to the court in a civil trial. The request asks the court to mandate that the opposing council and party turn over a given piece of material or information.Mar 8, 2022
Evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant.
Bail - Cash or surety posted to procure the release of a defendant in a criminal proceeding by insuring his/her future attendance in court, and compelling him/her to remain within the jurisdiction of the court.
Appeal Bond - A sum of money posted by a person appealing a judicial decision (appellant). Appearance – (1) The formal proceeding by which a defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court. (2) A written notification to the plaintiff by an attorney stating that s/he is representing the defendant.
Affidavit of Insolvency - A detailed form signed by the defendant, under oath, attesting to his/her indigency (inability to pay for private legal counsel).
Arrest Warrant – An order by a judge that gives permission for a police officer to arrest a person for allegedly committing a crime. Assault - Threat to inflict injury with an apparent ability to do so. Also, any intentional display of force that would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm.
Appeal - An application to a higher court for review of an order of conviction or of a civil judgment against a party.
Amend – Improve, correct or change a complaint or other pleading. Amicus Curiae - A friend of the court. One not a party to a case who volunteers, or is asked by the court, to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it.
Aid and Abet - To actively, knowingly or intentionally assist another person in the commission or attempted commission of a crime. Alford Plea - A plea to a criminal charge that does not admit guilt, but admits that sufficient evidence exists to obtain a conviction.
If a judge is biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney, he cannot be fair and impartial in deciding the case. A party or attorney who believes such bias or prejudice exists must prove it with admissible evidence, and cannot base this belief on mere suspicion.
Judge's Relationship to a Party or Attorney. A judge's fairness and impartiality may be compromised when he or she has had a business or professional relationship with a party or attorney. In cases where the judge was a party's business partner or attorney, as well as in cases where the judge was a member of a law firm representing a party, ...
One of the key principles of the American judicial system is that the judge who presides over a case must be fair and impartial. In the vast majority of cases, the issue of the judge's fairness and impartiality never comes up. There are instances, however, when one of the parties in a civil case has reason to believe that ...
In those situations, the judge will either recuse himself or the litigant will move to have the judge disqualified from presiding over the case. Let's look at some of the circumstances that may lead to a judge's recusal or disqualification.
Even a judge who is not serving as the finder of fact (i.e., when the case is to be decided by a jury) cannot be fair and impartial if he or she has personal knowledge of disputed facts, because the judge's evidentiary rulings (in pleadings and motions made by the parties) may be influenced by that knowledge.
When a case is dismissed with prejudice, it’s closed for good. Neither party can reopen the case at a later date, and the matter is considered permanently resolved. On the other hand, dismissing a case without prejudice leaves ...
If the prosecutor decides to proceed with the case despite insufficient evidence, your attorney can file a motion with the judge to have the case dismissed based on insufficient evidence. Fourth Amendment violations – as a US citizen, you’re protected against unlawful searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment.
Insufficient evidence – in some cases your attorney may be able to convince the prosecutor that there isn’t enough evidence to build a solid case, leading to the prosecutor dropping charges before filing. In other cases, your attorney may be able to present compelling evidence that contradicts the police report.
Breach of protocol – prosecutors and law enforcement officials are bound by strict protocol during an arrest, booking, interrogation, bail hearing, or pretrial activities. When your rights are violated due to a breach of protocol, this may serve as grounds to dismiss the case against you. Inadmissible testimony – the most popular example ...
When a case is involuntarily dismissed, the judge chooses to dismiss the case against the wishes of the prosecution. This usually takes place when the defense files a motion to dismiss based on a legal reason, such as lack of evidence.
If their plate is full, your attorney may be able to negotiate a deal to have your charges dropped or reduced to avoid the hassle of going to trial.
When a jury fails to deliver an unanimous verdict, the defense may file a motion to declare a mistrial. The judge may ask the jury to take additional time to deliberate and attempt to reach a verdict, but if it becomes clear that an unanimous verdict is out of the question, the judge will declare a mistrial.
These are known as peremptory challenges, which are ways to get rid of jurors who present no obvious evidence of bias or unsuitability.
Convinced that the juror would not be fair , the defense attorney uses one of his peremptories to excuse her. Another theory for the use of peremptories is that by letting each side dispense with the most unacceptable members of the jury, it results in a more middle-of-the road jury, one not subject to extreme views.
When such bias is uncovered, the individual will be excused “for cause,” which means that the lawyer making the challenge can articulate to the judge an acceptable reason for rejecting that person. This article explains the common “for ...
Although lawyers don’t have to give a reason for using a peremptory, they may not use them in order to rid the jury of people of a certain race, religion, gender, or other protected status. If a pattern begins to emerge—the prosecutor excuses every Black juror but no White members—the judge will intervene.
A venireperson who states that he would naturally believe a police officer’s account simply because it comes from a police officer is predisposed towards one side from the beginning. This person will be excused for cause.
The crowd of people who show up at the courthouse with jury summons in hand are known as “venirepersons, ” which means that they are potential jurors (the group is called “the venire").
Venirepersons will be excused if they indicate that they will not convict in view of the sentence that might result. Such sentiments surface in drug use cases, for example, where some people feel quite strongly that personal use of illegal drugs should result in treatment, not incarceration.
A: The lawyer should ask the judge to excuse her from answering because of her confidentiality obligations to her client. Roiphe said this question brings up the intersection or tension of a lawyer’s obligation to tell the truth or not to make a false statement and their obligation to confidentiality to their client.
A: No, because the witness’ death was not exculpatory, and therefore the prosecutor had no constitutional, statutory or ethical duty of disclosure. Roiphe said that in the actual case the court concluded no, and added that for her the issue is one of deceit.
The defendant’s mother told the defense lawyer that her son would likely not make it to court the next day, as he had just left the house “high as a kite.”. Drug use would violate a term of the defendant’s pretrial release. When the defendant is absent from court the next day, the judge asks defense counsel, “Do you have any information about why ...
Initially, the prosecution cannot locate the complainant, but eventually it does and the prosecutor announces, “ready for trial” and the case is marked trial-ready. Over the next two months, the prosecutor and defense counsel negotiate a guilty plea. The defendant accepts the plea offer.
Hyland is a partner at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in New York, where she focuses on legal ethics, professional responsibility and legal malpractice. “As a general practice,’’ said Green, “lawyers aren’t supposed to lie.
Answer: No, because although lawyers may not generally use deceit to gather evidence, lawyers and their agents may pretend to be ordinary customers in order to gather evidence of ongoing wrongdoing. The court said there is a tradition here of lawyers either engaging in or supervising investigators to engage in a certain amount ...
If the plaintiff won the first lawsuit because the statute of limitations passed, or for some other technical reason that did not prove whether the plaintiff was guilty or innocent, the plaintiff's malicious prosecution lawsuit against the defendant will fail.
When a defendant testified that he had a criminal affidavit filed against the plaintiff simply in order to collect a debt from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's malicious prosecution lawsuit was successful because the defendant used the criminal process for an improper purpose.
If a civil or criminal case is wrongfully prosecuted, the defendant in that case may be able to turn around and sue the plaintiff for malicious prosecution.
A police officer did not give all of the facts when he obtained an arrest warrant on the plaintiff for possession of illegal hypodermic needles. When there was no proof that the plaintiff was using the needles for illegal purposes, the plaintiff successfully sued for malicious prosecution.
If the defendant's attorney is being sued for malicious prosecution, the attorney is not liable simply because she thought the case probably would not win. The rule is that no reasonable attorney (not just the attorney being sued) would believe the case was based on any real facts showing a legitimate dispute.
In essence, the person who was previously prosecuted or sued (now the plaintiff) can sue the person who brought the original case (now the defendant) for malicious prosecution if the defendant started an illegitimate criminal or civil case for an ulterior motive. This article briefly reviews the elements of a malicious prosecution case ...
Threatening a lawsuit for ulterior purposes is not malicious prosecution because no process has been actually used or abused. For example, if a defense attorney threatens the plaintiff in a civil suit with criminal charges in hopes that the plaintiff will drop the civil case, there is no malicious prosecution.
In some circumstances, such as when a contractor has not performed at all, you could withhold payment and thu s not fulfill your own contractual obligations .
When you become involved in a dispute with a contractor, the goal is often to try to resolve the problem quickly so construction can resume, either with that contractor or with a replacement contractor if the problems make a continued relationship with the current contractor impossible .
Give us a call today at 714-505-3000 to find out more about how our expert construction disputes attorneys can assist you with proactively addressing conflicts and seeking appropriate legal remedies.
There are a number of different ways to try to resolve a conflict. One option is to simply try to negotiate on the issue. You can do this with help from your lawyers on your own, or can work with a trained mediator to try to come to a consensus. If no compromise or solution can be reached through negotiation, litigation could also be an option.
However, there are arbitration clauses in many construction contracts and these claus es are typically considered to be enforceable.
The difficulty for the lawyer is that those recordings have been made in secret and the other party is not aware of them. The other party will most likely object to them being used in the court case and a separate application will have to be made for the recordings to be admitted into the evidence. This situation is becoming increasingly relevant ...
They would then want to use the recordings in the court proceedings to show the judge what is really going on.
In family court proceedings, the available evidence usually boils down to one parent’s word against the other – it can be difficult to prove a parent’s complaint when no one else is around as a witness. Very often, a party will have recorded conversations between either themselves or others, which they believe are of relevant ...
The claimant’s witnesses may be a big factor in how much compensation is awarded for pain and suffering. Sometimes the insurance company will speak to witnesses before a lawsuit. The adjuster will decide whether he thinks the witness is honest and credible.
As a personal injury lawyer, the injured person or his/her lawyer needs to know the average settlement value of pain and suffering for different types of injuries. This will allow you to know when to settle without lawsuit, and when to sue.
It took countless requests to get his health insurance plan to agree to waive their lien. Since the health insurer waived its lien, the entire settlement was for John’s pain and suffering. As you can see, this is another example where the entire settlement was for pain and suffering.
A couple months after the accident, John complained to an orthopedic doctor about knee pain. Ultimately, the doctor took an MRI of his knee. John had a meniscus tear. Shortly thereafter, the doctor operated on his knee.
Insurance companies do not use those basic pain and suffering calculators. They are not putting their billions of dollars on the line by using a calculator that only asks you to enter a few pieces of information. Insurance companies use over 70 factors to calculate the value of your case.
Yes, your car accident settlement will likely be higher if the car is totaled or the damage is big. I’m talking about for settlement purposes, if you are claiming soft tissue injuries. Soft tissue injuries include whiplash, neck and/or back pain or any pain without a broken bone.
Pain and suffering is just one type damages for which you can get compensation. If someone else was negligent, you may also be able to get a payout for your medical bills, lost wages and more. I even created a pain and suffering calculator. But do not calculate your case value with it.