Answer: Trial Jury
A trial jury, also known as a petit jury, decides whether the defendant committed the crime as charged in a criminal case, or whether the defendant injured the plaintiff in a civil case.
Consists of 6-12 people.
Trials are generally public, but jury deliberations are private.
Defendants have the right to appear, testify, and call witnesses on their behalf.
Final outcome is a verdict, in favor of plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, or guilty/not guilty in a criminal case.
Grand Jury
A grand jury is presented with evidence from the U.S. attorney, the prosecutor in federal criminal cases. The grand jury determines whether there is “probable cause” to believe the individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial. If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, an indictment will be issued against the defendant.
Consists of 16-23 people.
Grand jury proceedings are not open to the public.
Defendants and their attorneys do not have the right to appear before the grand jury.
Explanation: bench trial is a trial by judge, as opposed to a trial by jury. The term applies most appropriately to any administrative hearing in relation to a summary offense to distinguish the type of trial. Many legal systems (Roman, Islamic) use bench trials for most or all cases or for certain types of cases.
Considering the available options, the choice that is considered as an innovative criminal defense strategy is "<u>battered women's syndrome."</u>
<h3>What is battered women's syndrome?</h3>
Battered women's syndrome is a medical and psychological term that is used to describe the severe mental health ailment resulting from serious domestic abuse.
Given the legal situation, battered women's syndrome is not a typical condition that is common but has been innovated by some defenders to justify their offense so they can get discharged and acquitted.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is <u>Battered women's syndrome.</u>
Learn more about the criminal defense strategy here: brainly.com/question/11342133
Answer:
Prevent crime and disorder- g00gle
Judicial restraint is the political theory that says courts shouldn't, unless absolutely required, issue rulings that broaden or alter the character of existing laws.
<h3>Justiciable constraint is exercised by whom?</h3>
A jurist (judge or justice) who upholds a philosophy of restraint can be described as one who considers democracy to have intrinsic, rather than just instrumental, value, that the judiciary is indeed the least powerful of the three branches of government, and who values stability and predictability in the lawmaking process.
<h3>Why do advocates of judicial restraint assert that judges are impervious to public sentiment?</h3>
They are freed from the strain of the outer world of public opinion since they do not have to worry about being reelected. In the end, the majority may not always be correct. The fact that the Founders established appointed judges and elected legislators is not by coincidence.
Learn more about Judicial restraint: brainly.com/question/29545866
#SPJ4
Answer
Hello I'm want to be your friend
