Court Procedures Test 1 Review 1) In a system, the opposing parties both present their arguments to a judge and jury. The usually determines the truth.

2) In an inquisitional system, the plays a in gathering evidence, presenting evidencing and questioning witnesses.
3) The United States has a system of justice.

4) Jurisdiction is . There are two types of jurisdiction, , which deals with where the case happened, and , which deals with the type of case it is.

5) consider evidence, hear testimony and decide issues of fact and law.

6) do not consider evidence or hear testimony and only concerned with issues of law.

7) Questions about what happened in a case that are resolved by the testimony and evidence are called . The
usually determines these.

8) are resolved by the judge.

9) In Florida there the trial courts are called and .

10) In Florida, misdemeanor cases start in .

11) In Florida, civil cases where the parties are arguing about more than $15,000 start in .

12) If you lose at the trial court in Florida you can appeal to .

13) The highest court in Florida is called the . True or false, this Court must hear every case appealed to it.

14) In the Federal system the trial courts are called
.

15) If you lose at the trial court in the Federal system you can appeal to .

16) The first step in appealing a case to the United States Supreme Court is filing a which is a request for the Supreme Court to hear your case.

17) justices must agree to hear your case in order for the Supreme Court to take it.

18) are briefs that are filed in the Supreme Court by non-parties.

19) The Supreme Court either or a case.

20), , and are the three types of opinions Supreme Court justices write. Only opinions become the law.

21) In , the Supreme Court first stated the concept of judicial review.

22) Judicial review means that the Supreme Court has the power to and .

Explanation:

As an accused is not compelled to give evidence in a criminal adversarial proceeding, they may not be questioned by a prosecutor or judge unless they choose to do so. However, should they decide to testify, they are subject to cross-examination and could be found guilty of perjury. As the election to maintain an accused person's right to silence prevents any examination or cross-examination of that person's position, it follows that the decision of counsel as to what evidence will be called is a crucial tactic in any case in the adversarial system and hence it might be said that it is a lawyer's manipulation of the truth. Certainly, it requires the skills of counsel on both sides to be fairly equally pitted and subjected to an impartial judge.

By contrast, while defendants in most civil law systems can be compelled to give a statement, this statement is not subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor and not given under oath. This allows the defendant to explain his side of the case without being subject to cross-examination by a skilled opposition. However, this is mainly because it is not the prosecutor but the judges who question the defendant. The concept of "cross"-examination is entirely due to adversarial structure of the common law.

Judges in an adversarial system are impartial in ensuring the fair play of due process, or fundamental justice. Such judges decide, often when called upon by counsel rather than of their own motion, what evidence is to be admitted when there is a dispute; though in some common law jurisdictions judges play more of a role in deciding what evidence to admit into the record or reject. At worst, abusing judicial discretion would actually pave the way to a biased decision, rendering obsolete the judicial process in question—rule of law being illicitly subordinated by rule of man under such discriminating circumstances.

The rules of evidence are also developed based upon the system of objections of adversaries and on what basis it may tend to prejudice the trier of fact which may be the judge or the jury. In a way the rules of evidence can function to give a judge limited inquisitorial powers as the judge may exclude evidence he/she believes is not trustworthy or irrelevant to the legal issue at hand.

All evidence must be relevant and not hearsay evidence.

all i have to say is that people are truly ignorant and don't have anything better to do with their lives.

answer: they get money for not letting the president go

explanation: