As a result of the guarantee of life and liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution, privacy is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution.
The right to privacy in India has changed during the past 60 years as a result of various rulings. Over the years, there has been disagreement over whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right due to inconsistency from two early rulings. The evaluation and interpretation of constitutional provisions must guarantee that they are in line with the international human rights treaties that India has ratified. According to the court, privacy is a fundamental prerequisite for the meaningful exercise of other guaranteed freedoms.
To learn more about right to privacy visit;
https://brainly.com/question/2033492
#SPJ4
Information is considered discoverable when it can lead to evidence admissible during a trial?
a. Spoilation of Evidence
b. Scope of Discovery
c. Discovery
d. Motions
Discovery information is considered discoverable when it can lead to evidence admissible during a trial
What is Admissible evidence?
Any testimonial, documentary, or physical evidence that can be presented to a factfinder—typically a judge or jury—to support or bolster a claim made by a party to the action is admissible evidence in a court of law. Evidence must be both relevant and "not precluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it cannot be unfairly prejudiced and must have certain reliability indicators, in order to be considered admissible. The general rule of evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible; however, in some nations (such as the United States and, to some extent, Australia), the prosecution is prohibited from using evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, making relevant evidence inadmissible.
To learn more about Admissible evidence visit;
https://brainly.com/question/30628934
#SPJ4
A mayor sued a blogger for defamation in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction. The mayor alleged in her complaint that the blogger had published defamatory statements about her that suggested she was having an adulterous relationship. The mayor's entire case rested on her own testimony establishing the prima facie elements of her claim and a properly authenticated and admitted copy of the allegedly defamatory publication. At the end of the mayor's presentation of evidence to the jury, the blogger filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Finding that the mayor's meager evidence was insufficient for a jury reasonably to find that the publication was false, as was required by state law, the judge granted the blogger's motion and directed a judgment in favor of the blogger. The mayor immediately appealed the judgment, contending that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard in granting the motion.
On these facts, should the judgment be set aside on appeal?
A. No, because the district court's ruling was not clearly erroneous.
B. No, because the mayor failed to meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case as a matter of law.
C. Yes, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law cannot be granted until both parties have presented their cases.
D. Yes, because the district court improperly evaluated the weight of the evidence.
Answer:Answer choice D is correct. When ruling on a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the opposing party. It may not consider the credibility of witnesses or evaluate the weight of the evidence, and it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Therefore, on these facts, the district court improperly granted the blogger's motion, and the ruling should be set aside.
Explanation:
Answer choice A is incorrect because it states the incorrect standard to be applied when reviewing a judgment as a matter of law. Appellate review of legal rulings is de novo. The appeals court will use the trial court's record, but it reviews the evidence and law without deference to the trial court's rulings.
Answer choice B is incorrect because the mayor met this burden by testifying that the publication was false. The credibility of this testimony must be assessed by the jury.
Answer choice C is incorrect because a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.
why did the scopes trial take place? what was the controvery in the case? why was the case so important to both sides
Journalist H. L. Mencken dubbed the 1925 prosecution of high school teacher John T. Scopes for breaking the Tennessee Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in public institutions.
The case was prosecuted as the "Scopes monkey trial." A plaintiff who has been wounded is one of the crucial components of what the Court views as a case or controversy.
A crucial criterion of the Court's definition of standing is that a plaintiff must demonstrate that they have actually experienced "injury." Listening to the accuser as well as the one who made the accusation is known as hearing both sides.
Learn more about scopes controvery Visit: brainly.com/question/16931527
#SPJ4
______ laws are made to protect the public as a whole from the harmful acts of others.
Nuisance ordinances laws are made to protect the public as a whole from the harmful acts of others.
Nuisance ordinances, likewise alluded to as a crime-free ordinance or a disorderly house ordinance, is a nearby regulation typically passed on the town, city, or district level of government that plans to legitimately rebuff the two landowners and occupants for violations that happen on a property or in an area. These regulations force punishments under programs alluded to as disturbance reduction when wrongdoings are accounted for, whether or not violations really happened or what the police activity involved.
The consequence of these laws is for property managers to tell occupants to not report wrongdoings, decline to restore the rent of anybody engaged with revealing a wrongdoing, and expulsion of inhabitants engaged with any violations, regardless of whether the inhabitants were the casualties of said violations.
As per the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), while allies of these mandates contend that they forestall crimes in the region under the laws, the genuine outcome is rather a decrease in by and large open security and mischief brought to casualties of wrongdoing, especially those experiencing homegrown maltreatment, that are dissuaded from revealing the crime carried out against them.
To know more about laws,visit here:
https://brainly.com/question/8903161
#SPJ4
What law supervises the legal product of cigarettes in the country?
The tobacco regulation Act supervises the legal product of cigarettes in the country.
What is the Tobacco regulation Act?
Republic Act No. 9211, often referred to as the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, is an all-encompassing regulation that controls, among other things, smoking in public places, tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, and sales limitations. The Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003's Implementing Rules and Regulations were published by the Inter-Agency Tobacco Committee. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Committee are thorough and address a wide variety of tobacco control issues. The Consumer Act of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 7394) handles false, deceptive, or misleading advertising generally in addition to the restrictions on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship in Rep. Act No. 9211 and the Implementing Rules and Regulations.
To learn more about Tobacco regulation Act visit;
https://brainly.com/question/28465321
#SPJ4
what kinds of changes would be expected in the demand of a country that has a growing population?
A country with a growing population would likely experience changes in demand, such as an increase in the need for housing.
Current demand will increase if a price decrease is anticipated. Current demand will decrease if a price increase is anticipated. The current world population of 8 billion people is projected to rise to 9.7 billion in 2050 and reach a peak of nearly 10.4 billion in the middle of the twenty-first century, an increase of nearly 2 billion people.
In a given country, territory, or geographic area at a given year, the difference between births less deaths and the difference between immigrants and emigrants is what is used to calculate the annual increase in population size. measurement technique.
Learn more about " growing population " to visit here;
https://brainly.com/question/15872322
#SPJ4
what governing system allows the central government to alter or abolish subgovernments?
Subgovernments may be changed or eliminated under a unitary system of government. In a unitary system, either the central government is the only unit of government or the sub-units are.
It's common to refer to a unitary government as a centralized one. One centralized organization controls all of the government's authority. Local units of governance are established by the national (central) government for convenience.
Either there is just one level of government under the unitary system, or the sub-units are subject to the central authority. Orders can be delivered to the provincial or local government from the federal government. The federal government, however, is unable to impose orders on the state governments.
Learn more about governments Visit: brainly.com/question/25192887
#SPJ4
Which of the following standards of proof is more than a gut feeling and legally permits a law enforcement officer to stop and frisk a suspect?a. rebuttable presumption
b. reasonable suspicion
c. conclusive presumption
d. mere suspicion
The standard of proof that is more than a gut feeling and legally permits a law enforcement officer to stop and frisk a suspect is "reasonable suspicion".
Reasonable suspicion is a legal requirement that authorises law enforcement authorities to detain and investigate a person for a short period of time if they have specific and articulable evidence that indicate the person may be involved in criminal conduct. A reasonable suspicion requirement is lower than probable cause, which is necessary for a full arrest or search. An officer must have more than a hunch or a subjective emotion to reach the bar of reasonable suspicion, but less than the degree of proof required for probable cause. The particular facts that give rise to reasonable suspicion can vary based on the circumstances of each individual case.
For such more question on law:
https://brainly.com/question/820417
#SPJ4
A plaintiff bringing an intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit must prove the defendant's action. (True or False)
True, a plaintiff bringing an intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit must prove the defendant's action.
In order to successfully bring a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions were extreme and outrageous, that the actions caused the plaintiff's emotional distress, and that the emotional distress was severe. Without proving these elements, the plaintiff's lawsuit will not be successful.
To successfully bring anointment onal infliction of emotional distress lawsuit, a plaintiff must generally prove that the defendant's actions were extreme and outrageous, and that they caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant intended to cause emotional distress or recklessly disregarded the high True.
To successfully bring an intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit, a plaintiff must generally prove that the defendant's actions were extreme and outrageous, and that they caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant intended to cause emotional distress or recklessly disregarded the high probability that their actions would cause such distress. In other words, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's action was intentional, and that it resulted in emotional distress for the plaintiff.
that their actions would cause such distress. In other words, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's action was intentional, and that it resulted in emotional distress for the plaintiff.
Read more about infliction here:https://brainly.com/question/13948475
#SPJ11
who black men have slammed the door shut on a past of deadening passivity?
Black males have slammed the door shut on a past of deadening passivity, said Martin Luther King.
Who is Martin Luther King?
From 1955 until his assassination in 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. (born Michael King Jr.; January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American Baptist clergyman and activist. He was one of the movement's most famous leaders. Son of early civil rights activist and preacher Martin Luther King Sr., King achieved civil rights for people of color in the United States through nonviolence and civil disobedience. He was an African-American church leader. He conducted targeted, peaceful opposition against Jim Crow laws and other kinds of discrimination, motivated by his Christian convictions and Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent activity.
To learn more about Martin Luther King visit;
https://brainly.com/question/8560787
#SPJ4
Controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act is an example of the friction inherent in___.
a.confederal systems.
b.unitary systems.
c.federalism.
d.cooperative
The controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act is an example of the friction inherent in federalism.
What is federalism?
Federalism is a combination and compound form of governance that divides the authorities between a general administration (the central or "federal") and regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial, or other sub-unit governments) within a single political system. In the unions of states under the Old Swiss Confederacy, federalism as it is known now was first practiced. Federalism is distinct from both devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subservient to the general level, and confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level.
To learn more about federalism visit;
https://brainly.com/question/8305583
#SPJ4
what was the number one fear the founding fathers had when planning our new government?
A powerful national government was feared by many of the founding fathers when planning our new government.
A list of rights that would be protected by the government was important because they were concerned that a strong national government may violate citizens' rights.
The Founders were terrified of concentrated political power. They held that the only way liberty could survive man's innate propensity to impose his preferences on other men was by limiting government. In essence, they had to choose between listing what the federal government could do and listing what it could not do. On issues like slavery and how to equalize power, many of them had divergent views. Maintaining the same degree of power throughout the government and pleasing the states was their second major challenge.
To learn more about founding fathers visit;
https://brainly.com/question/28758325
#SPJ4
to help others see you during heavy rain, use your
Use your low-beam headlights in a lot of rain to make yourself visible to other people.
What are Low-beam headlights?
Low beam headlights—also referred to as the "headlight lower beam" or "dipped headlights"—are used by drivers when visibility is reduced to less than 100 feet (or less, depending on state regulations), frequently as a result of nighttime or bad weather. They are useful for navigating traffic as well. Typically, we refer to the low beam light when we "switch on our headlights." When it's dark outside, for instance, it's the default setting. Because they illuminate the road more effectively in some situations and enable other drivers to see your car without being blinded, we use low-beam headlights more frequently than high-beam headlights.
To learn more about Low-beam headlights visit;
https://brainly.com/question/30666380
#SPJ4
A couple buys a new house, but they are unable to gain access to a shared driveway that
crosses their neighbor's property. What legal action can they take to secure their right of
access?
If the couple has a legitimate claim to the shared driveway, they can file a lawsuit to enforce that claim. This is done by filing lawsuit against their neighbour to compel them to allow access or by asking for an injunction to compel them to use the neighbor's driveway.
Can a co-owner be subject to a temporary injunction?A co-owner cannot seek an injunction against the other co-owner with regard to land acquired jointly since ownership by one co-owner is regarded as possession by both.
What distinguishes a co-owner from a co-sharer?If a co-owner or his transferee is removed from joint possession, he has the right to joint possession through litigation and is not required to file a partition lawsuit. A co-sharer may bring a claim for possession on behalf of all co-sharers or for the division and possession of the plaintiff's share.
To know more about legitimate claim, visit:
brainly.com/question/30020455
#SPJ1
A plaintiff was severely injured when her car collided with the defendant's truck on a highway in State A. The plaintiff was a citizen of State B and the defendant was a citizen of State A. The defendant had no contacts with State B. The plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in State B under diversity jurisdiction, asserting a state law claim for damages resulting from the defendant's alleged negligence. The defendant filed an answer, specifically denying each of the plaintiff's claims. Three months later, after discovery concluded and just before trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.Should the court dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
A
No, because dismissal would prejudice the plaintiff, since discovery has already occurred in the case.
B
No, because the defendant has waived the objection to the court's jurisdiction.
C
Yes, because the defendant had no contacts with State B.
D
Yes, because the court may dismiss an action for lack of personal jurisdiction at any time prior to final judgment.
The correct answer is (D) Yes, because the court may dismiss an action for lack of personal jurisdiction at any time prior to final judgment.
Even if the defendant previously answered the complaint without raising the question of personal jurisdiction, they can bring it again in a petition to dismiss. The defendant may object to personal jurisdiction in a timely manner by putting it in their initial reply pleading or by filing a separate move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
As a result, the court has the authority to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant, even if it occurs shortly before trial and after discovery, because lack of personal jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that affects the court's ability to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant.
For such more question on jurisdiction:
https://brainly.com/question/26659100
#SPJ4
alex was on a coast-to-coast trip by automobile. while passing through ohio, alex had a flat tire. it was fixed by sam's turnpike service station, and later, while alex was driving through indiana, the tire came off and alex was injured. alex was hospitalized in indiana, so he sued sam in indiana for the injuries. what rules of substantive law will the indiana court use to determine if sam is at fault? explain.
If Sam is at fault, the Indiana court will use the conflicts of law principles to decide. Due to Sam's negligence, this would be a tort action, hence Indiana law would be used under a conflict of laws principles.
What was the conflict of laws principles?
Conflict of laws refers to a discrepancy between the laws that apply to a dispute from two or more different jurisdictions. The law that is chosen to address the conflict will determine the case's outcome. There may be a conflict between the laws of various nations, federal and state laws, or even laws within a single state.
Which law should be applied to resolve the case when there are competing laws is the main issue that arises. When selecting the legal standard to use in a case, courts follow a certain procedure. This procedure is referred to as characterization or classification in the legal community.
To learn more about conflict of laws principles visit;
https://brainly.com/question/16102825
#SPJ4
Explain how the US Supreme Court related their reasoning for creating the Exclusionary Rule in Mapp v. Ohio to deciding the Good Faith exception in US v. Leon.
1. Pilihan ganda1 minute1 ptQ. According to the rule of law, a government leader:Pilihan jawabanHas absolute authority to make decisionsIs excluded from "We the People"Must follow the laws like everyone elseHas more rights than ordinary citizens
Option 1 is Correct. In accordance with the rule of law, a government official: Has unrestricted decision-making power.
An Absolute Monarchy and Absolutism are closely related in that the reigning person has "absolute" power and is unchallenged by any legal, electoral, or other means. In a dictatorship, the lives of the populace are completely under the authority of the ruling party.
A single individual—typically a king or queen—holds total, autocratic power in an absolute monarchy. Under absolute monarchy, the throne normally passes via a reigning family, with the succession of power being hereditary. A political notion known as "sovereignty" designates absolute power or supreme authority. In a monarchy, the "sovereign" holds absolute power.
Learn more about government Visit: brainly.com/question/28320231
#SPJ4
Correct Question:
According to the rule of law, a government leader:
1. Has absolute authority to make decisions
2. Is excluded from "We the People"
3. Must follow the laws like everyone else
4. Has more rights than ordinary citizens
Laws are made to protect the public as a whole from the harmful acts of others
a)criminal
b)civil
c)international
d)military
Criminal laws are made to protect the public as a whole from the harmful acts of others.
Hence, the correct option is A.
Criminal laws is a body of law that apply to criminal acts. The main theories for criminal law are: to deter a crime, to reform the perpetrator, to provide retribution for the act, and to prevent further crimes. The main aim of criminal law is to prevent others from doing a crime by punishing the individuals committing the crime. Punishment of a criminal activity can specified on the basis of severity of the crime from penalties to capital punishment such as death penalty or imprisonment for life. Crime is social evil and it can harm an individual or a society but its impact is harmful for each member of the society, and to protect the society from such evils the criminal law was framed.
To know more about "Criminal laws" visit-
brainly.com/question/14529086
#SPJ4
Explain how U.S. citizens established the "public peace.".
Answer:
They Follow laws
Explanation:
The US citzenda follow laws
Where do I find excess Social Security and Tier 1 Rrta tax withheld?
Excess Social Security and Tier 1 Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) tax withheld can be found on your Form W-2. It is listed in box 4 (Social Security wages) and box 16 (RRTA compensation).
On your tax return, you can claim a refund of the excess Social Security and Tier 1 RRTA taxes withheld by entering the amount on line 71 of Form 1040 or line 44 of Form 1040A.
You may also be able to claim a refund of excess Social Security and Tier 1 RRTA taxes withheld if you had more than one job in the same year and the combined wages were more than the Social Security wage base. In that case, you will need to use Form 843 to claim the refund.
If you are filing a joint return, you may also be able to claim a refund of excess Social Security and Tier 1 RRTA taxes withheld for your spouse, as long as you both had jobs in the same year and the combined wages were more than the Social Security wage base. In that case, you will need to use Form 843 to claim the refund.
To learn more about joint return link is here
brainly.com/question/7611503
#SPJ4
During civil lawsuit proceeding regarding alcohol services, the court will try to determine if theA. whether the designated driver was present and remained sober. B. Guest BAC checked all night. C. server recently attended proper alcohol training. D.server contributed to the injury
During civil lawsuit proceedings regarding alcohol services, the court will try to determine if the server contributed to the injury.
So, option D is the correct answer.
The court will try to find out that while serving the alcohol, the proper policies and guidelines were followed or not which protects over drinking. As per the 21st amendment in the US Constitution, the maximum level of serving alcohol to an individual at one time differs from state to state which will be regulated by state guidelines.
The court will also determine if the server encouraged over drinking or not and if the server was sober or not at the time. Here, the intention and the purpose of the server is important.
So, the correct option would be D.
To know more about policies and guidelines, click here: brainly.com/question/10330871
#SPJ4
Criminal law actus reus arraignment bail beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof corporate criminal liability criminal conspiracy criminal intent cruel and unusual punishment defendant double jeopardy entrapment exclusionary rule felony indictment information miranda rule misdemeanors p.136 plea p.141 plea bargain p.142 preponderance presumption of innocence p.134 probable cause p.139 prosecutor p.136 public defender p.136 search warrant p.153 search and seizure p.153 self-incrimination p.155 specific intent p.137 speedy trial p.158 warrantless arrest p.139
A Latin term meaning "guilty act," which refers to the requirement in criminal law that the defendant must have committed a voluntary act that is prohibited by law.
Bail: A sum of money paid by the defendant or a third party to secure the defendant's release from jail before trial.
Criminal conspiracy: An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.
Defendant: The person accused of committing a crime.
Information: A formal charge filed by a prosecutor that a person has committed a crime.
Plea: A defendant's response to a criminal charge, in which he or she admits guilt (guilty plea), denies guilt (not guilty plea), or declines to contest the charges (no contest plea)
Preponderance: A lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires the prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt to a degree that is more likely than not.
Self-incrimination: The constitutional protection against being forced to testify against oneself.
For such more question on Criminal:
brainly.com/question/9325204
#SPJ4
when a tortfeasor is willful in bringing about a particular event that caused harm, it falls into which category of tort?
Option E is Correct. It falls under the Intentional category of tort when a tortfeasor willfully causes an incident that results in harm.
A tortfeasor is a person who commits a tort; this person is "liable" rather than guilty. The purpose of tort liability is to compensate the tort victim financially for the harm that the tortfeasor inflicted. There are further remedies available, such as injunctions or restitution.
When the defendant's activities were disproportionately risky, negligent torts occurred. Strict liability torts, in contrast to deliberate and negligent torts, are independent of the level of care that the defendant used. Courts in strict liability instances instead concentrate on whether a specific outcome or harm manifested. A sort of liability known as "fault" requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant's actions were at fault.
Learn more about tortfeasor Visit: brainly.com/question/28136021
#SPJ4
Correct Question:
When a tortfeasor is willful in bringing about a particular event that caused harm, it falls into which category of tort?
A) None of these
B) Partial liability
C) Negligence
D) Strict liability
E) Intentional
amendments to the constitution must be ratified by what fraction of congress___
Amendments to the constitution must be ratified by at least two-third vote of both the houses.
Amendment is a addition or alteration made to a law, constitution, statute through legislative bills and resolutions passed in both the houses of the senate. The government frames the laws and reforms which has to be brought in the houses which has to be passed with not less than two-third majority to be enacted otherwise the law becomes null and void and is disposed off. The first ever bill of rights was ratified by the congress in 1791. Till date the congress ratified 27 amendments in total.
To know more about "Amendments" visit-
brainly.com/question/13276616
#SPJ4
What 5 global companies have the highest number of employees?
The following list of five multinational corporations with the highest employee to revenue ratios includes:
$576 billion Walmart (WMT).Amazon (AMZN) is worth $486 billion.$443 billion Petro China (PTR).$394 billion Saudi Aramco (2222.SR).$388 billion is the value of Apple Inc.With nearly four million employees combined, Walmart and Amazon lead the retail industry as the largest employers worldwide. Statista reports that recent information has shown that the defense industry employs the most people globally.
With over 39% of the estimated total number of workers, the manufacturing industry is the largest employer, followed by the education sector with 22%. The majority of Indian workers are employed in the primary sector. The agricultural industry makes up the majority of the primary sector.
Learn more about employees Visit: brainly.com/question/27404382
#SPJ4
Laws are made to protect the public as a whole from the harmful acts of others
a)criminal
b)civil
c)international
d)military
Criminal laws are made to protect the public as a whole from the harmful acts of others.
What are Criminal laws?
Criminal law is the body of legislation that establishes criminal offenses, governs the detention, accusation, and trial of suspects, and establishes the fines and forms of retribution for those found guilty.
Criminal law is just one of the tools used by organized societies to safeguard individuals' rights and guarantee the survival of the group. In addition, there are the moral principles taught by families, schools, and religion; workplace and factory rules; laws of civil life enforced by regular police powers; and the penalties accessible through tort claims.
To learn more about Criminal laws visit;
https://brainly.com/question/1205493
#SPJ4
this document suggested the legislative branch have a house of representatives and a senate. what is this document?
The Connecticut compromise suggested the legislative branch have a house of representatives and a senate.
The congress of United States is bicameral in nature and the Connecticut compromise introduced the system of dual government. The compromise provided for a bicameral legislature is a legislative body with two houses, with representation in the House of Representatives according to population and in the Senate by equal numbers for each state. The upper house would have equal representation from each state, while the lower house would have proportional representation on the basis of population of the state.
To know more about "Connecticut compromise" visit-
brainly.com/question/11980534
#SPJ4
Under the Articles, the national government included a way to make, enforce and interpret laws.a. trueb. false
Under what circumstances will a judge grant a motion for a new trial?
a. When the attorneys did not ask enough questions of witnesses.
b. When the jury clearly misapplied the law or misunderstood the evidence.
c. When the jury did not ask enough questions during the trial.
When the jury clearly misapplied the law or misunderstood the evidence than a judge grants a motion for a new trial.
What is the jury?
An impartial decision (a finding of fact on a subject that has been formally presented to them by a court) can be made by a jury, which is a group of persons (jurors) who have been sworn to secrecy. They may also decide to impose a fine or judgment.
In England, juries emerged throughout the Middle Ages and are a distinctive feature of the common law system. The United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and other nations whose legal systems were influenced by the British Empire, as a result, employ them. However, most other nations follow either European civil law or Islamic sharia law, both of which rarely employ juries.
To learn more about jury visit;
https://brainly.com/question/9788151
#SPJ4
