Preliminary Candidate Advanced Avionics System (PCAAS)

Specifications which define the system functional requirements, the subsystem and interface needs, and other requirements such as maintainability, modularity, and reliability are summarized. A design definition of all required avionics functions and a system risk analysis are presented

When Should a Trial Judge Intervene to Question a Witness?

North Carolina Appellate Courts on several occasions have ordered new trials in cases due to the improper questioning of witnesses by the trial judge. Nonetheless, other Appellate Court opinions hold that limited questioning by the trial judge is appropriate and even necessary to promote clarity and to expedite the trial. We should all agree that the underlying purpose of every trial is to arrive at truth in the case and thus attempt to do justice. Clarity promotes justice. If the judge recognizes confusion at trial, limited intervention and questioning is allowed. The question becomes how far and under what circumstances may the trial judge intervene? A trial judge may intervene in the situations listed below, as well as others, without being subject to reversal on appeal. As I discuss the problems and possible solutions to the question presented, one must keep in mind that, under North Carolina trial procedure, no judge is allowed to voice any opinion as to whether any fact is fully or sufficiently proven as that invades the province of the jury

Save America: Stop Illegal Immigration

Security is an overriding issue confronting the United States, and if we want enhanced security, illegal immigration must be stopped. In fact, illegal immigration is an addiction that the United States must break, or it will break the United States

First Troop Philadelphi : City Cavalry

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/5507/thumbnail.jp

When Should a Trial Judge Intervene to Question a Witness?

North Carolina Appellate Courts on several occasions have ordered new trials in cases due to the improper questioning of witnesses by the trial judge. Nonetheless, other Appellate Court opinions hold that limited questioning by the trial judge is appropriate and even necessary to promote clarity and to expedite the trial. We should all agree that the underlying purpose of every trial is to arrive at truth in the case and thus attempt to do justice. Clarity promotes justice. If the judge recognizes confusion at trial, limited intervention and questioning is allowed. The question becomes how far and under what circumstances may the trial judge intervene? A trial judge may intervene in the situations listed below, as well as others, without being subject to reversal on appeal. As I discuss the problems and possible solutions to the question presented, one must keep in mind that, under North Carolina trial procedure, no judge is allowed to voice any opinion as to whether any fact is fully or sufficiently proven as that invades the province of the jury

Rights and Interests of Parent, Child, Family and State: A Critique of Development of the Law in Recent Supreme Court Cases and in the North Carolina Juvenile Code

By many accounts the renaissance of basic rights and freedoms begun in the early Nineteen-Fifties is over. While the winds of social and legal change that formerly fanned constitutional issues to a blaze have subsided in many areas, in one very important area - basic family rights - the storm still rages, fed by emerging social theory. The rights at stake are embedded so deeply in our social structure that, ironically, the necessity for recognizing and defining them has come late in our legal history and, in the fabric of recent development of other fundamental freedoms, has gone relatively unnoticed