Assigning the Burden of Proof in Contractual Jury Waiver Challenges: When Can an Employer Take Away an Employee's Right to a Jury Trial?

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chester S. Chuang
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Jury Trial

Prior Convictions, Jury Trial, and the Burden of Proof

2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-179
Author(s):  
COLLEEN P. MURPHY
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Jury Trial

Boilerplate

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Jane Radin
Keyword(s):  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
New Methods ◽  
And Control ◽  
Fine Print

Boilerplate—the fine-print terms and conditions that we become subject to when we click “I agree” online, rent an apartment, or enter an employment contract, for example—pervades all aspects of our modern lives. On a daily basis, most of us accept boilerplate provisions without realizing that should a dispute arise about a purchased good or service, the nonnegotiable boilerplate terms can deprive us of our right to jury trial and relieve providers of responsibility for harm. Boilerplate is the first comprehensive treatment of the problems posed by the increasing use of these terms, demonstrating how their use has degraded traditional notions of consent, agreement, and contract, and sacrificed core rights whose loss threatens the democratic order. This book examines attempts to justify the use of boilerplate provisions by claiming either that recipients freely consent to them or that economic efficiency demands them, and it finds these justifications wanting. It argues that our courts, legislatures, and regulatory agencies have fallen short in their evaluation and oversight of the use of boilerplate clauses. To improve legal evaluation of boilerplate, the book offers a new analytical framework, one that takes into account the nature of the rights affected, the quality of the recipient's consent, and the extent of the use of these terms. It goes on to offer possibilities for new methods of boilerplate evaluation and control, and concludes by discussing positive steps that NGOs, legislators, regulators, courts, and scholars could take to bring about better practices.

INSTITUTE OF TRIAL BY JURY IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE: ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Komiljonov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Empire ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Past ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Jury System ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
The Moment

The article examines the Genesis of the institution of jury trial in the Russian Empire from the moment of its introduction to the end of the Provisional government. It is noted that the emergence of a trial with the participation of jurors was influenced by Western models of the judicial process, and the forms of participation of citizens in the administration of justice that previously existed on the territory of the Russian state were taken into account. The role that the jury system has played with some success in the search for truth, justice, and the implementation of effective and independent justice in the past centuries is particularly highlighted.

The CSI Effect

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Television Programs ◽  
Forensic Evidence ◽  
Csi Effect ◽  
Real Phenomenon ◽  
Scene Investigation

The CSI Effect posits that exposure to television programs that portray forensic science (e.g., CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) can change the way jurors evaluate forensic evidence. The most commonly researched hypothesis under the CSI Effect suggests that shows like CSI depict an unrealistically high standard of forensic science and thus unreasonably inflate the expectations of jurors. Jurors are thus more likely to vote to acquit, and prosecutors face higher burden of proof. We review (1) the theory behind the CSI Effect, (2) the perception of the effect among legal actors, (3) the academic treatment of the effect, and (4) how courts have dealt with the effect. We demonstrate that while legal actors do see the CSI Effect as a serious issue, there is virtually no empirical evidence suggesting it is a real phenomenon. Moreover, many of the remedies employed by courts may do no more than introduce bias into juror decision making or even trigger the CSI Effect when it would not normally occur (i.e., the self-fulfilling prophesy). We end with suggestions for the proper treatment of the CSI Effect in courts, and directions for future scholarly work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document