`` On trial in Jakarta for having flown for the Indonesian anti-Communist insurgents, U.S. pilot Alan Lawrence Pope boldly told the court that in supporting the freedom fighters, he was actually defending the sovereignty and independence of Indonesia.

This Court agreed with the trial court `` that considerations of price, quality and service were not overlooked by either Du Pont or General Motors ''.

Its enforcement was enjoined by a federal trial court.

But it is crucial that here, unlike Burford, the trial court was ordered to retain the case until the state courts had had a reasonable opportunity to settle the state-law question.

Several defendants in the Summerdale police burglary trial made statements indicating their guilt at the time of their arrest, Judge James B. Parsons was told in Criminal court yesterday.

The trial will be held, probably the first week of March, in the famous Old Bailey central criminal court where Klaus Fuchs, the naturalized British German born scientist who succeeded in giving American and British atomic bomb secrets to Russia and thereby changed world history during the 1950s, was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

The charge that the federal indictment of three Chicago narcotics detail detectives `` is the product of rumor, combined with malice, and individual enmity '' on the part of the federal narcotics unit here was made yesterday in their conspiracy trial before Judge Joseph Sam Perry in federal District court.

Two members of the panel later told in court about receiving telephone calls at their homes from anonymous persons expressing interest in the trial.

Likewise, in some jurisdictions, the state or prosecution may appeal an issue of law " by leave " from the trial court and / or the appellate court.

Generally, an appeal of the judgment will also allow appeal of all other orders or rulings made by the trial court in the course of the case.

Generally speaking the appellate court examines the record of evidence presented in the trial court and the law that the lower court applied and decides whether that decision was legally sound or not.

This might be the proper standard of review, for example, if the lower court resolved the case by granting a pre-trial motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment which is usually based only upon written submissions to the trial court and not on any trial testimony.

Certain jurisdictions permit certain appeals to cause the trial to be heard afresh in the appellate court.

Generally, there is no trial in an appellate court, only consideration of the record of the evidence presented to the trial court and all the pre-trial and trial court proceedings are reviewed — unless the appeal is by way of re-hearing, new evidence will usually only be considered on appeal in " very " rare instances, for example if that material evidence was unavailable to a party for some very significant reason such as prosecutorial misconduct.

The accused did not object to the trial court's charge to the jury that discourse `` may constitute a breach of the peace if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest.

But in some jurisdictions, the state or prosecution may appeal " as of right " from a trial court's dismissal of an indictment in whole or in part or from a trial court's granting of a defendant's suppression motion.

In some cases, an appellant may successfully argue that the law under which the lower decision was rendered was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, or may convince the higher court to order a new trial on the basis that evidence earlier sought was concealed or only recently discovered.

Depending on the system, certain courts may serve as both trial courts and appellate courts, hearing appeals of decisions made by courts with more limited jurisdiction.

This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome.

According to Stewart, there was evidence that gambling interests may have influenced Johnson's impeachment trial.

* A placebo-controlled trial has suggested that adding L-theanine, an amino acid found in green tea and available as supplement, to ongoing antipsychotic medication may be helpful in reducing some symptoms of schizophrenia .< ref name =" BfR ">

An accountant may prepare the income statement and balance sheet using the trial balance and ledgers prepared by the bookkeeper.

Finally financial statements are drawn from the trial balance, which may include:

Even in policed societies, fear may inhibit from reporting incidents or from co-operating in a trial.

Systems deriving from blood feuds may survive alongside more advanced legal systems or be given recognition by courts ( for example, trial by combat ).

In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action may avoid the necessity of repeating " days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial.

A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.

Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behaviour toward the judge or magistrates while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding, may be prosecuted as " direct " contempt.

Where it is necessary to act quickly the judge ( even the trial judge ) may act to sentence for contempt.

Section 2 of the Act limits the common law presumption that conduct may be treated as contempt regardless of intention: now only cases where there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a trial are affected.

In many European countries the prosecution may appeal an acquittal to a higher court ( similar to the provisions of Canadian law ) – this is not counted as double jeopardy but as a continuation of the same trial.

However, a person who has been convicted may request another trial on grounds of new exculpating evidence through a procedure known as révision.

A number of historians note that as many as 40, 000 accused prisoners may have been summarily executed without trial or died awaiting trial.

The main difference between the Federal Constitutional Court and the Federal Court of Justice is that the Federal Constitutional Court may only be called if a constitutional matter within a case is in question ( e. g. a possible violation of human rights in a criminal trial ), while the Federal Court of Justice may be called in any case.

In the United States, a trial in which the insanity defense is invoked typically involves the testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists who will, as expert witnesses, present opinions on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense.

In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey,, and Blakely v. Washington,, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines.

However, judges have been known to throw out murder charges for cold cases if they feel the delay violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial.

The rule provides that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally not admissible by the prosecution during the defendant's criminal trial.

In Barker v. Wingo,, the Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right has been violated in the case.

In Strunk v. United States,, the Supreme Court ruled that if the reviewing court finds that a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, then the indictment must be dismissed and / or the conviction overturned.

The Court held that, since the delayed trial is the state action which violates the defendant's rights, no other remedy would be appropriate.

" The accused may also request a closure of the trial ; though, it must be demonstrated that “ first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.

A confession obtained in violation of the Miranda standards may nonetheless be used for purposes of impeaching the defendant's testimony: that is, if the defendant takes the stand at trial and the prosecution wishes to introduce the defendant's confession as a prior inconsistent statement to attack the defendant's credibility, the Miranda holding will not prohibit this ( see Harris v. New York, ).

A judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of " guilty " following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases because it would violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

In Barker v. Wingo ( 1972 ), the Supreme Court developed a four-part test that considers the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice to the defendant.

If the claimant rejects the defendant's offer to settle and fails to better that offer at trial:

At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify.

Since there were no further instructions required to be given by the defendant to his own counsel, the judge ruled that the trial would proceed in the defendant's absence, and after summing up, he sent the jury to deliberate.

In May 2005, based on its understanding of implied malice to require defendant's subjective appreciation and conscious disregard of a likely risk of causing serious bodily injury to another, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's call for a new trial on the second-only degree murder count, and Knoller appealed to the California Supreme Court.