English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-10-31 13:48:42 · 4 answers · asked by Lioness 6 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Saved by Grace: I agree.

2007-10-31 15:22:52 · update #1

4 answers

Judge basically runs the whole trial.
His powers are seemingly unlimited:
A judge can:
1. Dismiss the case on summary judgment or for failure to state a claim
2. Override the jury's verdict (only in civil case or on a guilty verdict in criminal cases)
3. Make ruling about admissibility of evidence
4. Disqualify attorneys as incompetent
5. Throw any participant in the case in jail for contempt of court
6. Rule on continuances
7. Rule on objections
8. Introduce certain evidence (only well known or easily verifiable facts)
9. Disqualify witnesses
10. Choose jury members
Etc etc etc

Basically During the trial the Judge is the boss.

2007-10-31 14:03:27 · answer #1 · answered by hq3 6 · 1 0

You've touched a nerve with this question. I'm against the present judicial powers in practice. I support fully informed juries. The original intention for power distribution in the courts was to give the jury the most power of any one person. The original intention for the judge's duties was only that of a mediator, & law interpreter. This gave the jury (the "people") the right to decide if the law was being mis-applied, or that it was simply a bad law. The jury even would have the right to decide if a greater or lesser charge should be applied. This original intention for jury power would reduce the incidences of releases of the guilty on "technicalities", because the jury would have the power to overlook these errors in the name of justice & fairness. Because of the present practices, "the people" have lost their power over the government AND "special interests"!

2007-10-31 22:12:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Very broad powers -- judges have a lot of discretion.

Jury instructions are just one aspect of their primary authority -- which is to rule on matters of law. That means the judge interprets how the law works, and what the law means.

Beyond that -- judges control the flow of the case, including almost all aspects of scheduling, and most other procedural decisions are up to the judge.

2007-10-31 21:13:31 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

The judge can declare a mistrial for a plethora of reasons. The judge also rules on procedural motions raised by both parties to the trial.As such he is a "trial manager." His job is to assure fairness, though we both know this does not always happen. If it did the appellate courts would have far less to do.

2007-10-31 20:54:50 · answer #4 · answered by coho51 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers