What does the phrase &quot;or anyone close to you&quot; mean in juror questionnaires A silly example: &quot;Do you or anyone close to you prefer pancakes to waffles?&quot; Does the phrase refer to my immediate family (spouse, children, parents, or siblings)? My extended family (grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins)? Friends? Work associates? Google just gave me a bunch of example questions but no definition, so I'm just wondering if there is a generally accepted interpretation.
This is not a technical legal term. If you hate your mother and haven't spoken to her for years, she's not &quot;close to you&quot;. It's someone you like a lot; not just tolerate. If your wife, who you love, prefers pancakes over waffles and you say &quot;No&quot;, you have committed perjury and if they find out you can be sent to prison. You can try to defend yourself against the perjury charge by proving that you hate her, unless there's convincing evidence that you don't.
There isn't enough information to give a reliable answer in the abstract. It is a hard concept for lots of people to understand, but words don't have the same meaning in every context. Law is not physics or chemistry. Words that mean one thing in a particular instrument or statute could mean another thing somewhere else, even if exactly the same words are used. More context would be helpful in determining a meaning. It could be a reference to a type of use, like AirBnB or other short term rentals (e.g. use as a hotel or hostel). It could also be a reference to a type of building that is not permanent such as tents, RVs, or other non-permanent structures intended for residential occupancy. Usually, a look at what the adjacent and framing language of the covenants say would clarify the intent as would some sense of the kind of structures built or intended to be built in the vicinity. It also isn't clear from context if the emphasis is on "residential" (e.g. in a property with a storage facility included), or on "temporary" (e.g. in a posh suburb).
There is, as far as I can see, no legal definition of picnic in England and Wales. In the absence of such, the convention applied by the UK courts is to use the normal meaning of the word; usually by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary (which is behind a paywall so I've used its free online version here)... An occasion when a packed meal is eaten outdoors, especially during an outing to the countryside. (My emphasis)
So I'm fascinated with the OJ trial and I've read a ton about it. I'll try to answer your question both accepting your premise as true, and then also going into what actually happened. First of all, jury nullification cannot be overturned in the US. The double jeopardy clause forbids it. This is such a powerful tool, in fact, that there are strict rules that prevent defense lawyers from mentioning or even hinting at jury nullification, in front of the jury, in almost all circumstances. It doesn't mean D is safe from all legal liability. OJ, obviously, was found liable in the civil trial. Sometimes other jurisdictions can prosecute. For example, after the officers in the Rodney King beating were acquitted in state court, the federal government got them for violating federal hate crime statutes. Second, looking at your premise. If jurors think D is guilty, but also being framed, that's not necessarily jury nullification. Remember, a criminal defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that 'probably guilty' means 'not guilty.' That said, there may be times when a jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt, but is so disgusted by the police tactics used in the case that they acquit. This would be jury nullification. What actually happened in the OJ case: Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the stand. He lied and said he'd never said the N word, and the defense produced tapes of him saying it a ton. The defense recalled him to the stand. Because perjury is a serious crime, this time he came in with his own defense lawyer, and did nothing but take the fifth on the stand. In a genius move, OJ's defense team asked him whether he planted any evidence in the OJ case. He didn't deny it, instead he took the fifth (again, as he was doing to every question). This was enough to sow reasonable doubt about OJ's guilt based on the evidence in that trial (there's obviously no actual doubt, in real life, that he's guilty). So, what actually happened wasn't jury nullification.
No more than any other system Ultimately, when deciding a criminal or civil matter and forcing people to abide by the decision somebody has to make that decision. A jury made up of members of the public can make poor, arbitrary, malicious or otherwise ‘wrong’ decisions. But so can a trained and experienced judge. Or police officer. Or surgeon. In countries where jury trials are an embedded part of the legal system, they are seen as providing an important balance to government power, an egalitarian measure that places judgement in the hands of lay members of the public rather than a judicial elite and a defence against bias since they require unanimous or near-unanimous (10 of 12 is common) verdicts. In countries where they are not part of legal-social culture they are often regarded as stupid. Both positions are arguable. At the end of the day, juries can be biased and arbitrary. So can judges. The protection against this for judges is they have to give reasons for their decision and that is subject to appeal. The protection against this for juries is that their decisions have to be unanimous or, where majority verdicts are accepted, they have to be a super-majority - usually 10 from 12. However, the decision of the jury is typically not subject to review and they are usually prohibited from discussing their reasons: what happens in the jury room stays in the jury room. There are arguments both for and against why this is a good thing. However, in most jurisdictions, if there is clear evidence of jury misconduct (like jurors conducting a seance), a mistrial can be declared and we all start again. Similarly, if the judge reaches the opinion that the prosecution or plaintiffs has not provided enough evidence such that no reasonable jury could find that they have met their burden of proof, they can enter a directed verdict. Jurors who are corrupt or otherwise engage in criminal conduct can be prosecuted. Jurors who are just idiots are just idiots.
The parties can be required under oath to explain what they understand the plain meaning of the words to be. Where they disagree about the plain meaning of the words, they can use expert witnesses to give weight to their interpretation. Once the judge determines the plain meaning of the words (either by agreement between the parties or by reference to expert witnesses or other evidence), it is a matter of standard contract interpretation. Even in the case of an idioticon, where no expert witnesses are available, if the disagreement between the parties surrounds only a few words, the judge could find that there is no actual ambiguity because the context. Also, the judge could refer to parole evidence if needed. The purpose of the written contract is to provide evidence of your agreement. It is a bad idea to create evidence that you both may want to rely upon at some point if nobody else can understand it.
could this mean my employer owns the idea and anything I develop --since I would use the same technology for my idea that I do at work? No, unless by &quot;technology&quot; you mean the employer's materials or resources (see condition 3 of the clause). Your remark that &quot;this is completely and utterly unrelated to [employer's] business model&quot; survives items 1 and 2. Likewise, working on your idea outside hours survives the corresponding part of item 3. Would this also mean that any open-source software I develop outside of work automatically belongs to my employer? No, unless the software you develop is &quot;based on [your] knowledge [etc.] of (COMPANY)&quot;.
The parenthesized part means that if you are being compelled by law to disclose some confidential information, you must promptly notify the company of that fact. They could they respond by trying to get you excluded as a witness, or to limit your testimony, but you don't have to care what they do once they've been notified that you were subpoenaed. It may well be that every time the opposing side asks you a question, "your" side will object, and the judge will decide whether to sustain or overrule the objection. The only way in which you would defer to the company lawyer is by not answering the question before the question is finished (i.e. give the attorney 2 seconds to voice an objection). You would not have to "bring" the employer's lawyer along to a deposition, but that lawyer would probably be present and would similarly raise objections, if he felt like it. Your duty is simply to tell the company that you are being compelled to testify. In case the police or a detective agency are investigating the matter and they come to interview you, you are not compelled by law to answer (or to hand over documents), therefore you are supposed to decline to answer (and you are not obligated to inform the company that someone asked a question). As for an administrative subpoena, the perhaps tricky part will be knowing whether you are being compelled to testify, or invited to testify. The wording of the paperwork should inform you whether this is compulsory.