T / F? A jury is free to ignore a judge's statement of the facts in their case.?

Question

T / F? An appellate court may elect to hear new evidence in a suit.

Answer 1

a jury is free to decide the guilt/innocence of a defendant, based on the facts presented in the case during the trial, irrespective of any instructions given by the presiding judge in the case before the bench. if the new evidence in a suit is deemed  sufficiently substantive,  to alter a lower courts decision, it may elect to take the case of the appelant, into court proceedings.

Answer 2

True. A jury is free to ignore a judge's statements of facts in a case.

True. An appellate court may elect to hear new evidence in a suit (but usually won't). An appellate court is determining if there was an irregularity in the form, procedure, or application of rules/laws from the original trial.

Answer 3

true........a jury can do whatever they want............

just as the judge, can be so disgusted with their "decision"----he can declare a mistrial........he can order them to "re-think" their decision.......or he can veto it outright.....if he can think up substantial grounds.    It's a delicate system of checks and balances, that like most systems of checks and balances, CAN be manipulated by the smarter players when they want to push thru their agenda.  It doesn't happen OFTEN, as it can create quite the stink......but it does happen.

money, power, class, privilege, position, ---still play their roles.......and justice can truly be BLIND sometimes.