what does judge say to open trial and to take an oath?
541465
ask them in the best approximation you can and I will correct them for you. The opening of the court statement is actually "This court is now in session."
226907
It means you have asked for a trial.
1150629
This is a hot topic today, considering the secularist attacks on some of our (U.S.) society's traditional practices...\n\nHowever, I believe most courts will allow you to swear in "...under penalty of perjury" as opposed to "...so help you God."
817133
Whatever the judge says.
87389
Serve on a jury if called.
105843
depends on your judge
181240
Normally they are arrested and will see a judge, it is called an initial appearance.  The judge advise the defendant (accused person) of the charge.\n\nDepending on prior history, a defendant might be release to return to court later.  If the defendant has a history of not showing up to court (fail to appear), then the judge will likely have a bond amount set.  Your family/friend will have to post the bond for you to leave jail or you stay in jail until the case is completed.\n\nThe next event is the arraignment.  The defendant is required to enter a plea (guilty, not guilty/responsible, no contest).  If you are entering a not guilty plea, then it is set for a pre-trial conference.\n\nDuring the pre-trial conference, the prosecutor will offer a plea deal.  If rejected, then you will be set for trial.\n\nDuring the trial, if you are found guilty, you will get sentence at that time or a later date.
802158
That depends on what type of law the attorney practices.  As a criminal prosecutor I would say:\n\nIn the courtroom:  Honor-as in "yes, your honor", "of course your honor" or "I'll get right on that your honor"\n\nOutside the courtroom:  I would guess that 'f u c k' and its variations and 'idiot' are probably in a tie for first since they get used alot when venting about court.\n\nAt home:  "Not now"  as in "not now honey, I still have lots of work to do for tomorrow"
375698
Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Section 832 of Title 10, United States Code), requires a thorough and impartial investigation of charges and specifications before they may be referred to a general court-martial (the most serious level of courts-martial).\n(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.\n\n(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.\n\n(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.\n\n(d) The requirements of this article are binding on all persons administering this chapter but failure to follow them does not constitute judicial error.
134937
Ummm....judges, I'm fairly certain, cannot use tea leaves, crystal balls, or a roll of the dice to determine guilt or innocence.  Not sure why someone who claims to be an officer would suggest otherwise.\n\nGood luck on getting that trial transcript.  At least in California, traffic court is not required to have a court reporter.\n\nI disagree with the notion that the discovery process needed to be done earlier.  If the officer testified that the radar unit was calibrated, then the next logical questions would be when, by who, what were the results, etc.  If the officer didn't testify to the unit being calibrated, then the discovery request probably should have been made earlier if you wanted to know those things.\n\nThe judge may not have meant he and the officer were drinking/golfing buddies.  He may have meant the officer has been testifying before him for 13 years and because of his past testimony, the judge finds the officer to be very credible.  Since the judge does not know you, and perhaps has reason to doubt your side of the event, he may feel it's appropriate to take the officer's word over yours.  Judges or juries do that all the time...one witness is credible and can be believed, the other witness is not so credible and can be disbelieved.  \n\nI would not assume the judge's decision was based solely on the length of time the judge has known the officer.  The judge was maybe a little smart-assed when he said that (as recounted by you), but I don't know that I would just assume that's all he used to make his decision.
102321
You could have the interpreter testify in authentication (best if you are trying your case before a jury), or with the court's permission, offer an affidavit from the interpreter certifying her faithful interpretation of the foreign document.  Also, the court could take judicial notice of the translation as accurate, assuming no objection by opposing counsel.
138395
Perjury in a court of law basically means you lied while being questioned under oath in a court of law. When taking the stand to give testimony you swear you will tell the truth and nothing but, however, if while testifying you lie,you have committed perjury.\n\nYou can also committ perjury by signing a legal document that ask you to tell the truth and not give false info and you have lied, yet you still sign.(ex: tax forms, affidavits)
654530
Fully Informed Jury Association. Their mission is to inform jurors of their rights and responsibilities if they are called for duty. \n\nIf you are called for Jury Duty:\n\nDon't worry! Be happy! Look at jury service as an opportunity to "do good" for yourself and others. It's your chance to help the justice system deliver justice, which is absolutely essential to a free society.\n\nAlso, you can do more "political good" as a juror than in practically any other way as a citizen: your vote on the verdict is also a measure of public opinion on the law itself--an opinion which our lawmakers are likely to take seriously. Short of being elected to office yourself, you may never otherwise have a more powerful impact on the rules we live by than you will as a trial juror.\n\nHowever, unless you are fully informed of your powers as a juror, you may be manipulated by the less powerful players in the courtroom into delivering the verdict they want, instead of what justice would require. That is why this was written--to give you information that you're not likely to receive from the attorneys, or even from the judge.\n\nJustice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire, the jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving! So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.\n\nNothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law, but you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind that no juror's oath is enforceable, and that you may regard all "instructions" as advice.\n\nUnderstanding the full context in which an illegal act was committed is essential to deciding whether the defendant acted rightly or wrongly. Strict application of the law may produce a guilty verdict, but what about justice? If the jurors agree that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused did act as charged, then "context becomes everything" in reaching a verdict you can live with. Credit or blame for the verdict will go to you, so be sure to ask the judge how you can pose questions to witnesses, so that you can learn the complete context, should the lawyers fail to bring it out. \n\nWhen they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much of today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that violates your conscience.\n\nProsecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". But one of the great mistakes a jury can make is to betray both truth and conscience by compromising. If you believe the defendant is not guilty of anything, then vote "not guilty" on all counts.\n\nYou can't be punished for vo
817173
You will be given directions by a representing attorney. If not, you should ask. It is in their best interest that they prepare you prior to the court room!
170758
Turn youself in. Recieve judgemnt from the judge. Then travel accordingly.
829215
That is between you and GOD.\nHE IS THE JUDGE.\nGOD BLESS YOU.
1081952
Call the court house and give them the name and ask.