Talk:Trial

Merge: Crime, Trial section[edit]

I suggest that the "Trial" section from crime be merged into this article, as it strays from the main topic of the article and goes into detail which would be better described here. GridEpsilon 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Civil trial, Criminal Trial[edit]

I'd suggest merging civil trial into this article, and changing the redirect on criminal trial to this article.Mneumisi 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge civil trial + lawsuit ;; change civil trial to a redirect to lawsuit[edit]

civil trial is already covered by lawsuit (which appears to be the more developed article of the two. Changing merge recommendation. dr.ef.tymac 22:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

remove civil procedure template[edit]

The CivilProcedure template was removed from this article because the article makes reference to more than just civil trials. dr.ef.tymac 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

This article states that a mistrial in a criminal case is not allowed under double jeopardy, but that article states that a mistrial is an exception. Both statements are unsourced. --Thin boy 00 @649, i.e. 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there actually isn't a contradiction, it says that the double jeapordy clause applies if the judge wrongly ordered a mistrial.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not state that a mistrial is not allowed under double jeopardy; it states that double jeopardy will apply to bar a new trial if a mistrial is improperly declared, either through judicial error or prosecutorial misconduct.

I agree that citations would be appropriate to provide further clarity, but I do not think that the two articles are inconsistent on this point.

--Gunboat82 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a conflict, the Double Jeopardy article states that mistrials do not count towards double jeopardy, since a final judgement has not been reached. This article states that double jeopardy does apply. Some expert knowledge required I think. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to a mistrial, because there has not been a final judgment. There are two circumstances, however, in which there can be a mistrial AND the defendant can still invoke the Double Jeopardy Clause. One is if the judge has erroneously declared a mistrial over the defendant's objection. See U.S. v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 485 (1971). In that case, a mistrial should not have been granted in the first place, and the Constitution bars retrial of the defendant for the same offense. The second is if the prosecutor, presumably for strategic reasons, "goads" the defendant into moving for a mistrial. For such extreme cases of prosecutorial misconduct, the U.S. Supreme Court has fashioned a narrow exception to the general rule that double jeopardy does not attach to mistrials. See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 679 (1982).

There is no contradiction, just a need for greater clarity.

Gunboat82 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Gunboat82[reply]

Military trial[edit]

This article is lacking in both scope and depth. A trial is not held only in criminal cases, nor is it necessarily according to civil law. A military trial is held according to military law (usually with more severe punishments, cf. martial law). Different juridisdictions around the world have different legistlation. This article should reflect the global idea of a trial. A questioning and judgement based on the evidence brough forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.231.13 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

The format of the sections seems incorrect based on the use of order by types trials. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format of a trial[edit]

The order that a (US) trial proceeds in should be included in this article (for example, opening statements, cross examination, closing statements). I (and others readers) would want to know what a trial experience would be like. This information is surprisingly hard to find online, despite the number of lawyers and the supposed due process that we have. Maybe like this website:[1] --68.193.135.139 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labour & Employment Law Section?[edit]

Current content introduces the field of labour and employment law, but nothing specific re Trials. My understanding is proceedings in this legal field comprises many (substantial) civil trials and (substantial) administrative hearings - and which of these two maain routes cases take may be determined by a wide range of factors (legal system, leglislation, jurisdiction, industry, workplace, occupation, hiring conditions, full/part-time status, etc. But both these streams' trials are covered in general terms above. Is there some distinct Labour Trial type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTrent (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]