|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 8:29:12 GMT -5
Post by csmith on Mar 12, 2005 8:29:12 GMT -5
I was thinking, should appeals to the Supreme Court take the form of a new trial, or should the aggreived party just be required to prove that they were wronged in the original trial and really are right.
Personally, I think they should take the form of a new trial. If we choose the other option, the justice who originally heard the case in a lower court has a conflict of interest.
|
|
|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 14:23:34 GMT -5
Post by Z on Mar 12, 2005 14:23:34 GMT -5
maybe if its appieled we should just give the case to the other two justices to review.
|
|
|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 14:27:51 GMT -5
Post by csmith on Mar 12, 2005 14:27:51 GMT -5
Well, the problem then is the potential deadlock when it comes time to deciding on the verdict. What if one justice votes guilty and the other not guilty?
|
|
|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 14:35:45 GMT -5
Post by Z on Mar 12, 2005 14:35:45 GMT -5
Hmmm good point.
|
|
|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 14:38:09 GMT -5
Post by csmith on Mar 12, 2005 14:38:09 GMT -5
Nate, what say you?
|
|
|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 16:24:45 GMT -5
Post by admin on Mar 12, 2005 16:24:45 GMT -5
appeals should be a new trial. that way everything starts over and its a bit more fair.
|
|
|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 17:23:35 GMT -5
Post by csmith on Mar 12, 2005 17:23:35 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly.
|
|
|
|
Appeals
Mar 12, 2005 18:30:13 GMT -5
Post by Z on Mar 12, 2005 18:30:13 GMT -5
Ok sounds good to me.
|
|
