Arbitral Hearing

The right to be heard by a jury is when the defendant is given the opportunity to have a trial before their peers, friends and neighbors. This is when they can introduce information that will support their claims. While at the same time, prosecutors will bring forward all relevant facts to demonstrate the guilt of the suspect. This is illustrating how the accused has the right to have their case heard by an impartial third party (i.e. the jury). (Sundahl, 2011)

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

courts. A trial court has witnesses, exhibits are used as evidence, and a jury comes up with the

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

Lastly testimony is the most common form of evidence in the legal system and is spoken evidence given by a witness under oath in court or at a deposition (Universal

During the hearing, first of all, both parties must take an oath that all of the words are truth. Then, the tribunal starts asking some questions. It allows that both parties to provide relevant evidence and witnesses. Meanwhile, the witnesses must answer all the relevant questions if it is necessary.

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trial will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know( Ferdico, J 2005).

In closing the aspect of using better presentation of evidence in court rooms today help with understanding the perspective of the defendant and of the victims in question to the crime itself. Showing the case in a detail way was not possible years ago brings about the question of whether the jurors' had a full understanding of what was being asked of them to decide on the fate of the persons in question. Advance visual evidence should be the primary goal of any case preceding to bring about a

| |to decide whether or not the case has enough legal |come into a trial with no personal biases or prejudices. |

The lawyer’s presentations to the court will determine the fact with a trial judge or jury and relate it to the law to reach a decision before judgment is entered. Decision will base entirely upon material introduced by parties. Although individuals are free to represent

In the case sub judice, the County introduced seventeen pieces of evidence to be relied upon by the Board when rendering its decision. Floyd failed to object to the introduction of any of the evidence entered against him so as to give the Board an opportunity decide upon his objections in the first instance. The failure to adequately preserve these issues impairs out ability to assess the merits of Floyd’s arguments with the benefit of a developed record. We, therefore, hold that Floyd’s objections to the hearsay evidence admitted against him were not adequately preserved for judicial review. Assuming, arguendo, the questions here were preserved, for the reasons stated below we hold the admission of the evidence against Floyd did not deny his procedural due process rights.

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

When it is time for evidence to be submitted, everything is subject to procedural law and precedent. Though this protects the rights of individuals, it can make the entire process difficult. Additional difficulties encountered during adjudication include, but are not limited to: numerous expenses, a large time commitment, fighting between defense and prosecution, enormous responsibilities placed on the jury to only look at the facts presented and utilize whatever laws the judge has explained, a deadlocked or “hung” jury when the decision is not unanimous, and a mistrial.

Validation – The party funding the Arbitration will conduct extensive due diligence and extensive research on the merits of the case before agreeing to provide funds. They are interested only in good claims. This helps the claimant as it shapes the case procedure and the backing of the funding party empowers the position of the