Podcasts about trial by jury

Trial By Jury

On the second day of Diddy's federal trial, all eyes turned to star witness Cassie Ventura. The singer, once signed to Bad Boy records, had a complex relationship with Diddy marked by abuse. But will the jury see her only as a victim? We'll ask one of Bill Cosby's former attorneys, Monique Pressley. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On day three of Diddy's federal criminal trial, Cassie Ventura wrapped up her harrowing testimony — and the effects were immediate. Her words, and the disturbing details of Diddy's alleged abuse and so-called “freak offs," will have a big impact on the defense's strategy when they cross examine her tomorrow. In the latest episode of CNN's new Trial by Jury podcast, Laura Coates breaks down what it all means with criminal defense attorney and CNN legal analyst Mark O'Mara. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Legally speaking. Get an extra episode every week only at https://www.patreon.com/greatnight!

Legally speaking. Get an extra episode every week only at https://www.patreon.com/greatnight!

The federal racketeering and prostitution trial against rap star and producer Sean “Diddy” Combs got underway in New York on Monday. In our new series Trial By Jury, we bring you an inside look into the explosive opening arguments and the shock waves the trial is sending through the music world. CNN's Laura Coates sits down with music journalist and culture critic Touré to dig into how this trial is reshaping Diddy's legacy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The federal racketeering and prostitution trial against rap star and producer Sean “Diddy” Combs got underway in New York on Monday. In our new series Trial By Jury, we bring you an inside look into the explosive opening arguments and the shock waves the trial is sending through the music world. CNN's Laura Coates sits down with music journalist and culture critic Touré to dig into how this trial is reshaping Diddy's legacy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram. Subscribe on YouTubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Year, who dis? Only return guest, the iconic John Xintavelonis! (Yayyy!) As well as introducing, how brilliant new co-host, poached directly from 'Music Rewind Podcast', Stephen Epley!This week, John and AW drag Stephen through a Trial by Jury - but will it be a Death by Fire?Plus, we chat Theatre Ghosts, Guys and Dolls on Sydney Harbour, Bringing Big Musical Tours to Tassie, Aussie Rules Football, and heaps more in this hilarrrious episode! --SOCIALS--John X: Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnxactor -- IG: instagram.com/johnxactor Guys and Dolls Tickets: https://opera.org.au/productions/guys-dolls-on-sydney-harbour/Stephen: Twitter: https://x.com/MusicRewindPod -- IG: https://www.instagram.com/musicrewindpodcast/Music Rewind Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/3iBCPPLvFMP1nXsrPm8O2N?si=ea8a05cea62d4949*****Juxtaposing Metal with Musicals - joined by iconic guests from the worlds of Music, Broadway, Hollywood, and more! https://www.thetonastontales.com/listen -- https://www.patreon.com/bloomingtheatricals - https://twitter.com/thrashntreasurehttps://linktr.ee/thrashntreasure*****Help support Thrash 'n Treasure and keep us on-air, PLUS go on a fantastical adventure at the same time!Grab your copy of The Tonaston Tales by AW, and use the code TNT20 when you check out for 20% off eBooks and Paperbacks!https://www.thetonastontales.com/bookstore - TNT20 *****   ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Tom Rehn, Mylee Hogan, Mitch Sariovski, Oopy MacGillivray, Phil Coorey, Trial By Jury, Hannah Wardill, Eddie Summerfield and your calls.  Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics

Authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to appear anonymously in New York papers under the pseudonym "Publius" in 1787 and 1788, the Federalist Papers aimed to rally public support for the proposed Constitution of the United States. As such, it is one of the most important sources for understanding the original intent of the US Constitution by those who participated in its construction. In Federalist number one Alexander Hamilton sets forth the ambition of arguing the following positions in favor of the adoption of the Constitution: "I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY." Articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court has restored the right to a jury trial for Americans facing the Administrative State by affirming the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This overturned the SEC's unconstitutional administrative prosecution regime, which targeted George R. Jarkesy, Jr. in a lengthy administrative proceeding without a jury. The Court, agreeing with NCLA's brief, ruled 6-3 that the SEC violated Jarkesy's Seventh Amendment rights. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss and celebrate this historic victory vindicating Americans' civil liberties.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate the victory in this latest episode. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC's administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.'s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance's amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC's abuse of power.Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss the win in this episode and dig into an interesting footnote. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Atlanta author Aisha Saeed discusses her new children's book “Zuni and the Memory Jar.” We hear about this weekend's events with the hosts of How You Do Atlanta. WABE jazz and blues host H. Johnson talks about saxophonist Louis Jordan. Plus, the Canterbury Choristers' musical director, John King Carter, discusses their production of the one-act opera “Trial by Jury.”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The unprecedented criminal trial of a former POTUS in NYC as the Soros-funded Marxists weaponize the legal system to pursue and punish their political opponents.

This week lawyers in New York are trying to pick the jury for Donald Trump's trial. On the first day more than 50 potential jurors were dismissed, with many saying they couldn't be impartial. In this episode of The Briefing we ask Chief Justice Lucy McCallum about the future of juries. Justice McCallum presided over the trial between Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins— that case ultimately had to be abandoned due to juror misconduct. Headlines: 16-year-old charged with terrorist act  Seven CEO James Warburton departs network Vape shops could be forced to close Cocaine mystery solved   Follow The Briefing:Instagram: @thebriefingpodcast Facebook: TheBriefingNewsAUTwitter: @TheBriefingAUSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen live on the FIVEAA Player. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steve Forbes breaks down the landmark Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, which could see the calcification of bureaucratic kangaroo courts or the restoration of a crucial freedom accorded by the Constitution. Steve Forbes shares his What's Ahead Spotlights each Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

词汇提示1.summoned 传唤2.penalties 惩罚的3.registering 登记注册4.panel 咨询组5.prosecution 控诉6.burglary 入室盗窃罪7.approximately 大约8.attorney 律师9.insinuate 暗示10.swayed 摇摆11.civil suit 民事诉讼12.preponderance 多数原文Trial By JuryIf you are a citizen of Canada or the United States, it is very likely that you will be summoned at some time for jury duty.A letter will come in the mail, telling you to report to a certain place at a given time.There are legal penalties for not attending, because jury duty is considered every citizen's responsibility.Often a large number of people, perhaps several hundred, will be summoned at onetime.When you arrive, you will join a line-up of others who are registering for duty.Eventually,you will get to a table and talk to an official.If you have a special reason for not being a juror, such as ill health, you may be excused at this point.Those not immediately exempted become a part of a "jury panel."Out of this panel, a number of juries of twelve people will be chosen.These will decide a variety of criminal cases over the next few weeks.What follows is the experience of one woman in a "jury pool."She went with the others into a large courtroom where they spent the whole day.At the front of the courtroom were the judge, and the lawyers for the prosecution and for the defense.One of the lawyers explained what the case was going to be about.The names of the jury panel were in a box at the front.When someone's name was called, they went up to the front of the courtroom.The person called up would then have a chance to explain why they couldn't serve as a juror, if there was some reason preventing them.For example, one woman was dismissed because she knew the accused.The first jury to be chosen was for a burglary case.A panel member went forward and faced the accused.Then the lawyers in the trial decided whether the juror was satisfactory to them.At lunchtime, the panel was dismissed for an hour.The second jury was to try someone on a charge of murder.Usually the panel was told approximately how long the trial might be.Since jurors are not usually paid, many would like to avoid being involved in a long trial.The woman was called forward and had to look the man accused of murder in the eye.This made her quite nervous.Judging by her expression, the two lawyers would decide whether they wanted her on the jury or not.The defense lawyer would try to choose someone who seemed sympathetic to the man accused.The prosecutor would prefer someone who was not sympathetic.The woman excused herself by saying that she had a very young child to look after and no relatives to help.She was allowed to go home at the end of the day.Some people wonder whether it is fair for lawyers to dismiss jurors who may not be sympathetic to their cases.For example, defense lawyers may try to choose young people if they think that these will be less severe to their clients.In the case above, the lawyer seemed to prefer women to men.This means that a lot of people are dismissed from being jurors without a good reason.One principle of the jury system, however, is to protect the rights of the accused particularly well.One might say that the jury system is biased in favor of the defendant.This is why defense lawyers have an opportunity to dismiss people who they think will not be favorable to their clients.Furthermore,having twelve jurors gives the defense good opportunity for a successful defense.If the defense attorney can raise a reasonable doubt about the guilt of his client in even one juror, then the accused has a chance of being released.This happened in the O. J. Simpson murder trial.There,even though there was strong evidence that Simpson committed the crime, the defense was able to insinuate some doubts among the jurors.Moreover,the defense lawyers may be able to appeal to the emotions of the jurors, particularly if they can think of a way to gain sympathy for their client.For this reason, defense lawyers are more likely to choose trial by jury over trial by judge alone.A judge is less likely to be swayed by emotion than a jury.And a defense attorney may also prefer a criminal trial to a civil suit.In the latter case, the client does not have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but will be found liable if the preponderance of evidence is against him or her.This is why O.J. Simpson was acquitted on criminal charges, but then found liable for damages in a civil suit.翻译陪审团审判如果你是加拿大或美国公民，你很可能会在某个时候被传唤履行陪审团义务。邮件中会有一封信，让你在特定的时间到特定的地点报到。由于陪审义务被认为是每个公民的责任，因此不参加陪审会受到法律处罚。通常一次会召集大量的人，可能有几百人。当你到达时，你将加入一排正在登记值班的人。最后，你会坐到一张桌子前，和一位官员交谈。如果你有特殊原因不能担任陪审员，比如身体不好，你可以在这一点上被原谅。那些没有立即获得豁免的人成为“陪审团”的一部分。从这个小组中，将选出12人组成的陪审团。他们将在未来几周内对各种刑事案件作出裁决。以下是一位女性在“陪审团池”中的经历。她和其他人一起走进一个大法庭，在那里度过了一整天。站在法庭前面的是法官，以及控方和辩方的律师。其中一位律师解释了这个案子的内容。陪审团的名字在前面的一个盒子里。当有人叫到名字时，他们就走到法庭前面。被召唤的人将有机会解释为什么他们不能担任陪审员，如果有什么原因阻止他们。例如，一名妇女因认识被告而被解雇。选出的第一个陪审团是一起入室盗窃案。一名陪审团成员走上前去面对被告。然后律师们在审判中决定陪审员是否令他们满意。午餐时，小组休息一小时。第二个陪审团要审判一个被控谋杀的人。通常陪审团会被告知审判大概需要多长时间。由于陪审员通常没有报酬，许多人希望避免卷入旷日持久的审判。那个女人被叫到前面，不得不正视那个被控谋杀的男人。这使她很紧张。根据她的表情，两位律师将决定是否让她加入陪审团。辩护律师会尽量选择一个似乎同情被告的人。公诉人会选择不同情他的人。那位妇女为自己辩解说，她有一个很小的孩子要照顾，没有亲戚可以帮忙。她被允许在一天结束时回家。一些人怀疑律师解雇那些可能对他们的案件不感兴趣的陪审员是否公平。例如，辩护律师可能会选择年轻人，如果他们认为这些人对他们的客户不那么严重。在上面的案例中，律师似乎更喜欢女人而不是男人。这意味着很多人在没有充分理由的情况下就被解雇了。然而，陪审制度的一个原则是特别保护被告的权利。有人可能会说陪审团制度偏向于被告。这就是为什么辩护律师有机会解雇那些他们认为对他们的客户不利的人。此外，有12名陪审员为辩方提供了成功辩护的好机会。如果辩护律师能对其当事人的有罪提出合理的怀疑，哪怕只有一名陪审员，那么被告就有机会被释放。这发生在o.j.辛普森谋杀案的审判中。在那里，即使有强有力的证据表明辛普森犯了罪，辩方还是能够在陪审员中引起一些怀疑。此外，辩护律师可能会吸引陪审员的情绪，特别是如果他们能想到一种方法来获得对他们的当事人的同情。出于这个原因，辩护律师更有可能选择陪审团审判而不是法官单独审判。法官不像陪审团那样容易受情绪影响。辩护律师也可能更喜欢刑事审判而不是民事诉讼。在后一种情况下，当事人不必在排除合理怀疑的情况下被证明有罪，但如果证据优势对他或她不利，则应被判有罪。这就是为什么O.J.辛普森在刑事指控中被判无罪，但在民事诉讼中却被判负有损害赔偿责任。

This episode is Largely Q&A;  regarding the episode Innocent Until Proven Guilty.  Support the show

Trial by Jury. Defense Against Tyranny. This is an ACU encore Presentation.

Olivia developed a love of performing at an early age, undertaking many creative studies including piano, trumpet, drama and singing. She completed her singing exams with Trinity Guildhall at age 17 and at just 18 years of age completed her Diploma of World Theatre and Diploma in Musical Theatre with IMEB. Olivia graduated from Griffith University Queensland Conservatorium in 2017 with a Bachelor of Musical Theatre.  Olivia is a seasoned performer having portrayed "Nancy" in Oliver!, "Babette" in Beauty and the Beast, "Sarah Brown" in Guys and Dolls, "Angelina" in Trial By Jury, "Dorothy" in The Wizard of Oz, "Christine" in Phantom of the Opera, "Jo March" in Little Women the Musical, "Betty" in Sure Thing, "Carmen" in The Life, "Ursula" in Sweet Charity and "Margarita" in West Side Story. She has a CAT (Canberra Area Theatre Award) for Best Supporting Actress, was nominated a further 3 times and was also the recipient of the Mary Porter Scholarship. She was featured vocalist in "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change", "Sweet and Sour: A Cabaret", "CONfused: A Cabaret", The Lord Mayors City Hall Concert in Brisbane, "Thank You For The Music: An ABBA Tribute" and has performed with the Queensland Pops Orchestra.  In 2018 Olivia originated the role of "Raelene" in S*** Storm, a new Australian play at Anywhere Festival. Here she discovered her passion for creating and championing new Australian works and fostering new artists.  Olivia has directed, musical directed and co-choreographed performances of Into the Woods: JR, Aladdin: JR. and Shrek the Musical: JR In 2021 she formed her own production company, Olivia Ruggiero Productions, that produced her one-woman show "Puppets", which toured Sydney, Melbourne and Edinburgh. "Puppets" was awarded Best New Musical by BroadwayWorld: Sydney and Olivia was awarded "Best Performer". She co-produced her second one woman show "Broadway Diva" with Theatre Travels which opened in Adelaide and will tour to Sydney, Bathurst, Melbourne, Darwin and Edinburgh this year.  Little Women marks her first community theatre production as a producer and director.  Website: https://oliviaruggiero.org/ Seamus and Phoebe are teen actors and siblings who have performed in various shows including Aladdin, Into the Woods & Grease.

Despite countless investigations and numerous suspects over the years, the identity of the Zodiac Killer remains a mystery to this day. But what would it take to try this case in modern times? In order to build a strong case, new looks at Zodiac would need to start with a deep dive back into the original evidence, including potential DNA samples, fingerprints, and any other forensic evidence that might have been overlooked in the past - and that's what we're trying to do here.  In recent years, one suspect has started to attract the attention of a few modern day investigators, and that attention is beginning to shift the focus back to a man that holds a very interesting position in the case as we've come to know it.  Tonight, we're going to unpack a story that might be a little head scratching at first, but as you'll hear, the theory we're about to put forth, has roots that run very deep into Zodiac mythology. In fact, it has a lot to do with a suspect that, if you're familiar at all with this case, you'll know. But there's a twist to this story - one that plays right into the Zodiac's potential motives by playing directly to the ego that seemed to be at the center for every decision he ever made. When we started our look at this case, I really didn't know where it would take us. After hearing what you'll hear tonight, I'm more convinced than ever that we have identified the Zodiac killer. Or maybe I should say Zodiac killers. Welcome back to Vanished. This is a trial by jury for Don Cheney and Arthur Leigh Allen.  LINKS Our Website  Vanished on Twitter  Vanished on Instagram  Vanished on TikTok Vanished on Facebook  Vanished Facebook Discussion Group  Defense Diaries' Official Website  Defense Diaries on Twitter  Defense Diaries on TikTok  Sarah Cailean's Official Website  Sarah Cailean on Twitter  Sarah Cailean on Facebook  Drew Beeson's Official Website  Drew Beeson on Twitter  SHOW NOTES & FURTHER READING His Name Was Arthur Leigh Allen - on YouTube  Sighting In on The Zodiac Killer: Unmasking America's Most Puzzling Unsolved Murders by Drew Beeson  Don Cheney Speaks @ Zodiackiller.com 

词汇提示1.operetta 轻歌剧2.verse 诗歌3.puns 双关4.wit 机智5.businesslike 高效的6.composer 作曲家7.satire 讽刺诗8.triumph 胜利9.scripts 脚本10.rehearsed 排练11.orchestra 管弦乐队12.separately 分别地13.humming 哼鸣原文Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan are the authors of many lively and humorous operetta.These works are the most popular of their kind, and are regularly performed today.But the two authors are known almost as well for their arguments and disagreements.The famous partners were very different people with very different interests.William S Gilbert wrote the words that Sullivan set to music.Gilbert had a special talent for humorous verse.He loved puns and had a very quick wit.Personally, though, he was very businesslike.He had wanted to enter the military and always had the look of a soldier about him.He was fond of giving orders and disliked criticism of anything he did.Arthur S Sullivan, on the other hand, was a sensitive, emotional person whose main interest was music.Sullivan came from a poor family, but his musical talents and good looks had helped him to succeed.Sullivan wanted to write serious, classical music, but as a poor man, he needed a source of income.Sullivan also needed someone to direct him on his own.He had trouble deciding what to do.Gilbert and Sullivan never became really good friends, and at the end of their lives, they had little contact with each other.But the writer and musician needed each other.Gilbert needed a composer who could enliven his writings for the stage.Sullivan needed someone to write a text for his music.Sullivan, who tended to be lazy, needed someone to push him.A theatrical manager named Richard D'Oyly Carte arranged their first collaboration.Gilbert visited Sullivan and read him his satire on the legal system “Trial By Jury”.Sullivan loved the piece and quickly wrote the music.“Trial By Jury” was produced in 1875 and became the first triumph for the partners.D'Oyly Carte decided to form an acting company, which would stage future works by Gilbert and Sullivan.A string of successes follows: "The Sorcerer"in 1877; "H. M. S. Pinafore" in May 1878; "The Pirates of Penzance" in December 1878; "Patience" in 1881;"lolanthe" in 1882; "The Mikado" in 1885;"The Yeomen of the Guard" in 1888;and "The Gondoliers" in 1889.In spite of these successes, the two partners were not happy.Sullivan did not like the way Gilbert dominated their relationship.Sullivan had to write music for Gilbert's scripts.Why couldn't Gilbert write words for Sullivan's music?Gilbert, on the other hand, thought that Sullivan got the most of the credit for the success of their operates, and that he was overlooked.Gilbert was a driving force in the relationship.He was always writing new scripts and taking them to Sullivan.It was Gilbert who rehearsed the actors and supervised the productions.Sullivan had little to do with the actual performance.He usually did conduct the orchestra on opening night.The amazing thing is how these two different people produced such wonderful work.Each separately had difficulty writing something that the public wanted.Together, they were unbeatable.Gilbert's sharp and often cutting remarks were made acceptable by Sullivan's beautiful music.Gilbert satire might have made people angry, but Sullivan's music calmed them down.Even when the English people were the targets of Gilbert's criticisms, the audience went out of the theater humming these criticisms to Sullivan's music.翻译吉尔伯特和沙利文吉尔伯特和苏利文创作了许多生动幽默的轻歌剧。这些作品是同类作品中最受欢迎的，至今仍经常上演。但这两位作者的争论和分歧几乎同样为人所知。这些著名的合伙人是不同的人，有着不同的兴趣。威廉·S·吉尔伯特(William S Gilbert)写了沙利文谱成音乐的歌词。吉尔伯特有写幽默诗的特殊才能。他喜欢双关语，而且非常机智。不过，就个人而言，他非常务实。他曾想从军，而且总是一副士兵的样子。他喜欢发号施令，不喜欢批评他所做的任何事情。另一方面，亚瑟·S·苏利文是一个敏感、情绪化的人，他的主要兴趣是音乐。沙利文来自一个贫穷的家庭，但他的音乐天赋和英俊的外表帮助他取得了成功。沙利文想创作严肃的古典音乐，但作为一个穷人，他需要一个收入来源。沙利文也需要有人亲自指导他。他难以决定该做什么。吉尔伯特和沙利文从未成为真正的好朋友，在他们生命的最后阶段，他们彼此几乎没有联系。但是作家和音乐家彼此需要。吉尔伯特需要一个能使他的作品在舞台上生动起来的作曲家。沙利文需要有人为他的音乐写一段文字。沙利文很懒，需要有人来督促他。一位名叫理查德·德奥利·卡特的戏剧经理安排了他们的第一次合作。吉尔伯特拜访了沙利文，给他读了他对法律制度的讽刺作品《陪审团审判》。沙利文很喜欢这首曲子，很快就完成了配乐。《陪审团审判》制作于1875年，成为合伙人的第一个胜利。多伊利·卡特决定成立一家表演公司，为吉尔伯特和沙利文日后的作品演出。一系列的成功接踵而至:1877年的《魔法师》;1878年5月的《H. M. S. Pinafore》;1878年12月的《彭赞斯海盗》;1881年的《耐心》;1882年的《洛兰瑟》;1885年的《天皇》;1888年的《近卫自耕农》以及1889年的《船夫》。尽管取得了这些成功，但这两个合伙人并不快乐。沙利文不喜欢吉尔伯特主导他们的关系。沙利文必须为吉尔伯特的剧本作曲。为什么吉尔伯特不能为沙利文的音乐写歌词?另一方面，吉尔伯特认为苏利文获得了他们行动成功的大部分功劳，而他被忽视了。吉尔伯特是这段关系的推动力。他总是写新剧本，然后拿给沙利文看。是吉尔伯特为演员排练并监督制作。苏利文几乎没有参与演出。他通常会在首演之夜指挥管弦乐队。令人惊讶的是，这两个不同的人是如何创作出如此美妙的作品的。他们各自都很难写出公众想要的东西。他们在一起是不可战胜的。吉尔伯特尖锐而又尖刻的评论被沙利文优美的音乐所接受。吉尔伯特的讽刺可能会让人们愤怒，但沙利文的音乐让他们平静下来。即使英国人民是吉尔伯特批评的对象，观众走出剧院时也会哼着这些批评的歌，配上沙利文的音乐。

An Essay on the Trial By Jury

Host Mitch "Dead Eddy" Miller talks about a possible case of censorship of one of his websites. He accessed a computer at the Carnegie main public library and found that his website almavoter.com was blocked. Mitch then talks about the right to trial by jury in the U.S. Constitution. This right is mentioned three times between the constitution and bill of rights but many don't realize we no longer enjoy this right in most cases. An amendment in 1868 caused the legal system to allow states to adopt policies where some crimes only warrant a bench trial where a judge acts as the decision maker on the case without input from a jury. Trial by jury is a form of citizen review of the government where 12 people must take time out of their day to see what the government is arresting people for. If you are interested in smaller government or getting the legal system away from its racist derailment we need to insist on trial by jury on every charge even the most minor citation such as jay-walking or a burned out headlight. If you are interested in keeping policies where we arrest people on minor infractions then you should be prepared to sit on multiple juries within a year because this is the way the constitution is written. Mitch made this argument in the past when he and Bill Earl did an interview on camera that was posted to the internet. Thanks for listening.Support the show

Dan I get into how we got lost by the way side with Jury by trial. Then we get into some other topics that I think will tickle you fancy if you decide to listen in a bit longer! CHeers and enjoy  --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/paul-a-wice/support

In this episode, Serge and Clarke explore the phenomenon of the diminishing trial by jury. After explaining the statistics -- which are shocking -- Serge and Clarke seek to answer the questions of why the trial by jury is disappearing and the consequences of this significant change to the criminal justice process in America. 

The Founding Fathers were fond of brevity in creating our constitution.  While few in words and somewhat overlooked compared to some of the other amendments, the 7th Amendment is long in impact.  To be succinct, the 7th Amendment guarantees civil cases can be heard and decided by a jury.  Why was this needed?  What concerns were the Founders alleviating?  And why does it mention a $20 minimum dispute?  Join returning guest Joerg Knipprath with Southwestern Law School and our brilliant student panel for this chat on the 7th Amendment.

United States. The availability of a trial by jury in American jurisdictions varies. Because the United States legal system separated from that of the English one at the time of the American Revolution, the types of proceedings that use juries depends on whether such cases were tried by jury under English common law at that time rather than the methods used in English courts now. For example, at the time, English "courts of law" tried cases of torts or private law for monetary damages using juries, but "courts of equity" that tried civil cases seeking an injunction or another form of non-monetary relief did not. As a result, this practice continues in American civil laws, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some inquiries are likely to be heard by a jury. A distinctive feature of jury trials in the United States is that verdicts in criminal cases must usually be unanimous. Every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, he may waive his right to have a jury, but both the government (prosecution) and court must consent to the waiver. Several states require jury trials for all crimes, "petty" or not. In the cases Apprendi v New Jersey, (2000), and Blakely v Washington, (2004), 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. This invalidated the procedure in many states and the federal courts that allowed sentencing enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on the judge's findings alone. Depending upon the state, a jury must be unanimous for either a guilty or not guilty decision. A hung jury results in the defendant's release, however charges against the defendant are not dropped and can be reinstated if the state so chooses. Jurors in some states are selected through voter registration and drivers' license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking the recipient to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have any conditions that would excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, a summons is issued. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in many but not all common law judicial systems. The majority of common law jurisdictions in Asia (such as Singapore, Pakistan, India, and Malaysia) have abolished jury trials on the grounds that juries are susceptible to bias. Juries or lay judges have also been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States makes routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a very select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket (like malicious prosecution and false imprisonment suits in England and Wales), but true civil jury trials are almost entirely absent elsewhere in the world. Some civil law jurisdictions, however, have arbitration panels where non-legally trained members decide cases in select subject-matter areas relevant to the arbitration panel members' areas of expertise. The use of jury trials, which evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems, has had a profound impact on the nature of American civil procedure and criminal procedure rules, even if a bench trial is actually contemplated in a particular case. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly demanded has given rise to a system in which fact finding is concentrated in a single trial rather than multiple hearings, and appellate review of trial court decisions is greatly limited. Jury trials are of far less importance (or of no importance) in countries that do not have a common law system. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In this Bonus episode I continue the fantastic essay by Spooner and begin the chapter on the free administration of justice. If the justice system can't produce justice then it can and should be IGNORED by the people. But of course the govt INSISTS you ONLY seek justice inside their CORRUPT SYSTEM. The Quash comes out on Sundays with a bonus some Thursdays. If you like The Quash you should support it. Go become a member at patreon.com/theQuash. You get all sorts of additional shows each month and access to my entire library with 100's of great shows. Plus you get access to a live show each month and a private members only Telegram channel where you can hang out with like minded people. You can follow me on Twitter or Gab. I'm Legalman@USlawreview on both. You can join my public Telegram channel to keep up with me when I get booted and to find other people who like the show and get what is going on in this open air asylum. https://t.me/+PMYi9wodcUo4NjBh You can read my articles at thetruthabouthelaw.com

In this episode I begin my reading and discussion of Trial by jury, one of the most important essays on political freedom ever written. People must begin to understand the most fundamental right we have. Jury nullification. If you like The Quash you can get more and support it. Just go to patreon.com/theQuash and become a member. The Quash comes out on Sundays. AH episodes have more harsh language. You can follow me on Twitter I'm Legalman@USlawreview You can read my articles at thetruthaboutthelaw.com

Trial by Jury Defense Against Tyranny This is an encore presentation from our ACU Archives.  

How do you get from The Opera to The Musical?  Any answer to that question would have to include the powerhouse Victorian English duo of Gilbert and Sullivan and their ground-breaking form of “light opera.”  Hilarious, cheerful, and energetic, they innovated both in opera and satirical comedy.  Not only were they beloved by theater-goers of the late nineteenth century, they remain popular to this day, influencing the creators of drama, film, and musical theater. This episode of Opera For Everyone focuses on two of Gilbert and Sullivan's earliest successes, Trial by Jury and H.M.S. Pinafore.  Join us for a close look at these two delightful shows. Hosted by Pat and Rosie.