"At this stage of the court-martial, Queeg seems like a typical tough military disciplinarian—perhaps a bit too tough, but giving no good reason to believe he has psychological problems. He is confident and articulate, and seems to be in full possession of his faculties. A young signalman, Junius Urban, who was present on the bridge at the time Maryk took control, is called to testify about what happened. Urban provides a measure of comic relief, as he is poorly educated, extremely nervous, and confused about exactly what happened. His testimony tells the jury very little, but on cross-examination he lets"
"judge whose capacity is little different from that of an Article III judge in a U.S. district court. At the same time, the ""court-martial"" itself (the panel of officers hearing the case and weighing the evidence) has converted from being essentially a board of inquiry/review presiding over the trial, into a jury of military service-members. The current version of the UCMJ is printed in latest edition of the ""Manual for Courts-Martial"" (2012), incorporating changes made by the President (executive orders) and National Defense Authorization Acts of 2006 and 2007. Courts-martial are conducted under the UCMJ and the ""Manual for Courts-Martial"
"are often used either with the etymologically correct plural form (for example, ""Courts-martial deal with serious offences ..."") or as fully rederived plural forms (such as ""... ordering court-martials ...""). In the case of ""treasure trove"", the typical plural form is almost always ""treasure troves"", with ""treasures trove"" found mostly in historical or literary works. In Roman law, treasure trove was called ""thesaurus"" (""treasure"" in Latin), and defined by the Roman jurist Paulus as """"vetus quædam depositio pecuniæ, cujus non extat memoria, ut jam dominum non habeat"""" (an ancient deposit of money, of which no memory exists, so that it"
"correct plural for a compound expression. For example, because ""martial"" is a postpositive adjective in the phrase ""court-martial"", the plural is ""courts-martial"", the ending being attached to the noun rather than the adjective. In certain languages, including French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, Romanian, Arabic, Persian and Khmer, postpositive adjectives are the norm: it is normal for an attributive adjective to follow, rather than precede, the noun it modifies. The following example is from French and Spanish: In particular instances, however, such languages may also feature prepositive adjectives. In French, certain common adjectives normally precede the noun, including ""grand"" (""big"") while"
"*""queen consorts"" (where ""queens consort"" is considered the correct form) and *""court-martials"" (where the accepted plural is ""courts-martial"", although ""court-martials"" can be used as a third person present tense verb form). This rule does not necessarily apply to phrases with postpositives that have been rigidly fixed into names and titles. (For example, an English speaker might say ""Were there two separate Weather Undergrounds by the 1970s, or just one single organization?"".) Other phrases remain as they are because they intrinsically use a plural construction (and have no singular form), such as ""eggs Benedict"", ""nachos supreme"", ""Brothers Grimm"", ""Workers United"". Postpositive"
"in the United States' armed forces is the court-martial. This term also applies to the panel of military officers selected to serve as the finders of fact or ""jury"". In other words, they fulfil the role of a civilian jury in trying criminal cases. The Uniform Code of Military Justice outlines three distinct types of courts-martial. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for several tiers of appeal. All cases are reviewed by the commander convening the court (the convening authority) who, as a matter of command prerogative, may approve, disapprove, or modify the findings and/or sentence. The commander may"
"Courts-martial of the United States Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for criminal violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the U.S. military's criminal code. However, they can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial, Military Rules of"
"Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Courts-martial are judicial proceedings conducted by the armed forces. The Continental Congress first authorized the use of courts-martial in 1775. From the time of the American Revolutionary War through the middle of the twentieth century, courts-martial were governed by the Articles of War and the Articles for the Government of the Navy. Congress's authority ""To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"" is contained in the United States"
"general courts-martial (with the district courts-martial having more limited sentencing powers than the general courts-martial) was also abolished. The Court Martial may try any offence against service law, which includes all criminal offences under the law of England and Wales. Procedure is broadly similar to that of the Crown Court in England and Wales. The court is presided over by a judge advocate, and there is a board (similar to a jury) of between three and seven (depending on the seriousness of the offence) officers and warrant officers. Rulings on matters of law, practice and procedure are made by the"
"Courts-martial of Canada Courts-martial in Canada are trials conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces. The Chief Military Judge is Colonel Mario Dutil. Such courts martial are authorized under the National Defence Act. Civilians with a military unit also become subject to the courts-martial system. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the Canadian military for criminal violations of the Code of Service Discipline, which is the Canadian military's criminal code. The constitutionality of military courts-martial was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Généreux, but changes were mandated to ensure judicial independence. It was also"
"a general court-martial or special court-martial chooses to be tried by members rather than by a military judge alone, then the members are responsible for both rendering a verdict and a sentence should the accused be found guilty of the charges. The charges are brought forward by an officer called a ""convening authority"", and the convening authority also personally selects each of the members who will try the accused. The charges which have been levied by the convening authority are prosecuted at courts-martial by Judge Advocates called ""trial counsel"". Accused persons facing general or special courts-martial receive representation free of"
"the Court Martial. Punishments which can be handed down by the Court include imprisonment for up to 12 months (or 65 weeks for two or more offences), a fine or community service. Appeals from the Service Civilian Court lie to the Court Martial. An appeal is dealt with by the Court Martial by re-hearing the charge or decision on punishment. The Armed Forces Act 2006 established the Court Martial as a permanent standing court, effective from 1 November 2009. Previously courts-martial were convened on an ""ad hoc"" basis. The distinction, applicable in the Army and RAF, between district courts-martial and"
"consists of a military judge, trial counsel (prosecutor), defense counsel, and a minimum of three officers sitting as a panel of court members or jury. An enlisted accused may request a court composed of at least one-third enlisted personnel. An accused may also request trial by judge alone. Regardless of the offenses involved, a special court-martial sentence is limited to no more than forfeiture of two-thirds basic pay per month for one year, and additionally for enlisted personnel, one year confinement (or a lesser amount if the offenses have a lower maximum), and/or a bad-conduct discharge. An accused before a"
"Moot court Moot court is an extracurricular activity at many law schools in which participants take part in simulated court or arbitration proceedings, usually involving drafting memorials or memoranda and participating in oral argument. In most countries, the phrase ""moot court"" may be shortened to simply ""moot"" or ""mooting"". Participants are either referred to as ""mooters"" or, less conventionally, ""mooties"". Moot court involves a simulated appellate court (appellate advocacy) or arbitral case, which is different from a mock trial that involves a simulated jury trial or bench trial (trial advocacy). Moot court does not involve actual testimony by witnesses, cross-examination,"
"Moot court Moot court is an extracurricular activity at many law schools in which participants take part in simulated court or arbitration proceedings, usually involving drafting memorials or memoranda and participating in oral argument. In most countries, the phrase ""moot court"" may be shortened to simply ""moot"" or ""mooting"". Participants are either referred to as ""mooters"" or, less conventionally, ""mooties"". Moot court involves a simulated appellate court (appellate advocacy) or arbitral case, which is different from a mock trial that involves a simulated jury trial or bench trial (trial advocacy). Moot court does not involve actual testimony by witnesses, cross-examination,"
"judge advocate, whilst findings of guilt or innocence are made by the board by a simple majority of the members. For deliberations on sentence the judge advocate is joined by the board, which is a distinctive and unique feature of the Court Martial. The punishments which can be imposed by a Court Martial range from imprisonment in a civilian prison (for any period up to life if the offence warrants it), detention at the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester for two years or less, dismissal from the armed services (with or without disgrace), or an unlimited fine, down to"
"the effectiveness and stability of the court. The legislation increased the court's membership to five judges, consistent with the American Bar Association's Standards for Court Organization. In 1994, Congress gave the court its current designation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Courts-martial are conducted under the UCMJ (, U.C.M.J. art. 1–146) and the Manual for Courts-Martial. If the trial results in a conviction, the case is then reviewed by the convening authority – the person who referred the case for trial by court-martial. The convening authority may approve the conviction of the court-martial, but also has"
"court as ""sir"" or ""madam"" or ""your worship"", and the magistrates collectively as ""your worships"". In law reports, they are referred to as ""John Smith JP"" (for justice of the peace). Magistrates deal with less serious criminal cases, such as minor theft, criminal damage, assaults, public disorder and motoring offences. All magistrates sit in adult criminal courts as ""benches"" of three (occasionally two), mixed in gender, age and ethnicity whenever possible to bring a broad experience of life to the bench. All three members of the bench have equal decision-making powers but only the chairman speaks in court and presides"
"go back to the European Court for a ruling on swords for being intimidating. The Royal Australian Navy retains the practice of the sword on the table at courts-martial, as does the Indian Army. Swords in courts-martial The usage of swords in courts-martial was an established tradition within the British armed forces. The accused was marched into their court-martial by an escort armed with a sword. Commissioned officers would be obliged to put their swords on the court table as a symbol of their rank and reputation being put on hold. At the conclusion of the hearing, the tip of"
"must sit out and cannot rejoin until time is up. Go to Court is a variation of tag involving ""fugitives"" and ""marshals"". The marshals consist of approximately 1/5 of the total group and in either a dark house or neighborhood. After the countdown, the marshals pursue the fugitives. If a fugitive is spotted, a marshal may shout ""Go to court!"" whereupon the fugitive must go to a designated spot and await physical contact from another fugitive to resume part in the game. The marshals win if they successfully gather all of the fugitives. The Scottish version of the game, known"
"the discretion to mitigate the findings and sentence. Beyond the review by the convening authority, court-martial cases may be appealed to two additional levels of judicial review. These are the Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. If the sentence, as approved by the convening authority, includes death, a bad-conduct discharge, a dishonorable discharge, dismissal of an officer, or confinement for one year or more, the case is reviewed by an intermediate court. There are four such courts—the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Air Force Court"
"Swords in courts-martial The usage of swords in courts-martial was an established tradition within the British armed forces. The accused was marched into their court-martial by an escort armed with a sword. Commissioned officers would be obliged to put their swords on the court table as a symbol of their rank and reputation being put on hold. At the conclusion of the hearing, the tip of the sword was turned towards them if they had been found guilty. The practice was abolished in 2004 following a claim that it was demeaning under the Human Rights Act 1998. Traditionally in British"
"to convict. Additionally, the Manual for Courts-Martial requires only a judge and a specified number of panel members (five for a general court-martial or three for a special court-martial; no panel is seated for a summary court-martial) in all non-capital cases. In capital cases, a panel of 12 members is required. Of the 30 U.S. states with the death penalty, 28 provide the sentence to be decided by a jury, and 27 require a unanimous sentence. However, the states differ on what happens if the penalty phase results in a hung jury: The first outcome is referred as the ""true"
"been made by Parliament or any other authority or person in excess of their power under the Constitution. It consists of the Chief Justice and not less than four other justices. A Supreme Court hearing comprises not less than three justices of the Supreme Court. Courts Martial are empowered to try any person subject to military law, in addition to offences against the general law which are applicable to all persons who join the army. They can convened by the Force Commander or any General, Brigadier or Colonel or Officer of corresponding rank. A Court Martial consists of the President"
"courts-martial, all court officials would wear swords as well as all officers, whether they were a witness or were acting for the defence or prosecution. All accused, regardless of rank, would be marched into the courtroom by an armed escort. Officers' escorts would carry a drawn sword. If the accused was not an officer, the escort would carry a drawn cutlass. The accused officer would then have to lay his sword lengthwise on the court table as a symbol of putting his officer's commission and reputation on hold and on the line. When the verdict was decided, the judge would"
"only disturbed the statutory due process system of a given legislative court if the question concerns ""fundamental rights."" Of all the legislative courts created by Congress, courts-martial have received the most deference from Article III courts. Under a standard of review known as the ""separate community"" or ""military deference"" doctrine, the courts have proclaimed the armed forces to be ""a specialized society separate from civilian society"" with unique needs. The Article III courts will not invalidate the balance reached by Congress as regards the administration of military justice unless the ""fundamental right"" being affected is ""extraordinarily weighty."" Today's court-martial system,"
"proof so it is possible for a parolee to be punished by the parole board for criminal actions that he or she was acquitted of in court. In the American military, courts-martial are subject to the same law of double jeopardy, since the Uniform Code of Military Justice has incorporated all of the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The non-criminal proceeding non-judicial punishment (or NJP) is considered to be akin to a civil case and is subject to lower standards than a court-martial, which is the same as a civilian court of law. NJP proceedings are commonly used to correct"
"on a court-martial, within the military justice system, during times of declared war or rebellion. Most recently, as discussed below, the administration of George W. Bush sought to use military tribunals to try ""unlawful enemy combatants"", mostly individuals captured abroad and held at a prison camp at a military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A military tribunal or commission is most usually used to refer to a court that asserts jurisdiction over persons who are members of an enemy army, are held in military custody, and are accused of a violation of the laws of war. In contrast, courts-martial generally"
"the Military Court Centre in Bulford, Wiltshire. The judge advocate (the civilian judge heading the panel at a court-martial) was Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett. The verdict carried with it a mandatory life sentence, so it was only in the judge advocate's and court-martial board's power to decide on the minimum sentence once the board had found Blackman guilty. He was sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison. On 22 May 2014, at the Courts Martial Appeal Court, its most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, upheld the life sentence, but reduced Blackman's minimum term to 8"
"there are numerous Civil and Judicial Magistrates' Courts. A Magistrate with the powers of section 30 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) has the jurisdiction to hear all criminal matters other than those which carry the death penalty (such as attempted murder, dacoity, robbery, extortion, etc.), but may only pass a sentence of up to seven years' imprisonment. If the court thinks accused deserves more punishment than seven years in jail, then it has to refer the matter to a higher court, with its recommendations to that effect. Every Magistrates' Court is allocated a local jurisdiction, usually encompassing one or more"
"season, the NCFCA began offering moot court, but only at national level tournaments. For 2016-2017, this meant only at national opens, but for 2017-2018 they were also offered at the March Mixer/ Mini-Open Tournaments. In moot court, two teams of two students deliver oral arguments before a panel of ""judges"" similar to a United States Supreme Court or Appellate Court. They cite case law in order to convince the judges that a fictional court decision developed by the NCFCA should or should not be overturned. http://iew.com/ National Christian Forensics and Communications Association The National Christian Forensics and Communications Association is"
"or community service but not service detention. The Court Martial Appeal Court, first established in 1951, hears appeals from the Court Martial. It is mostly made up of judges from the civilian Court of Appeal for England and Wales. Further appeal lies to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The judges who preside over all hearings of the Service courts are known while they are sitting as ""judge advocates"". In the same way as other judges they are appointed by the Lord Chancellor following a process conducted by the Judicial Appointments Commission or, in the case of the Judge"
"of the local bar. There are four types of magistrate; Magistrates are somewhat less common in the United States than in Europe, but the position does exist in some state jurisdictions and in federal courts. The term ""magistrate"" is often used (chiefly in judicial opinions) as a generic term for any independent judge who is capable of issuing warrants, reviewing arrests, etc. When used in this way, it does not denote a judge with a particular office. Instead, it denotes (somewhat circularly) a judge or judicial officer who is capable of hearing and deciding a particular matter. That capability is"