Jury Application Cover Letter: Fill & Download for Free

No, it is still best to include a cover unless you are specifically instructed not to! So we still have those today who read cover letters. And as I’ve mentioned lots of times, during the Great Recession, more employers, recruiters, and hiring mangers were looking at cover letters. Why?It was because they take less time to skim or read than resumes. So it was a time-saver in terms of getting through the huge piles of resumes or CVs. And you still had enough information provided to determine if that candidate was somebody worth considering for employment. So cover letters are not dead as some mistakenly believe. And yes, there are certain jobs and professions where your cover will be read with a fine-toothed comb!FYI, check out this clip from a Fast Company article:

Yes and no. By “majoring”, I am assuming you’re talking about a B.A. in a college/university program. Within the US system, you really don’t have a “masters degree” in law per se, but instead, the Juris Doctor (JD). The JD is a professional degree, and unlike a masters degree, permits you to practice law in a US jurisdiction, provided you’ve been admitted into that jurisdiction’s respective Bar. Foreign lawyers often pursue a Master of Laws (LLM) degree which can operate for the purposes of practicing in the US as a JD, provided the Bar admission requirements are met.There are Master of Arts (MA) degrees however, that do focus on international law, both in the US and outside the US. Outside of the US, the degree system operates differently. For example, in the UK, rather than JDs, you have Bachelors of Laws (LL.B), which do NOT permit you to practice law in a US jurisdiction. But if you’re studying within the US, you must complete your college degree prior to starting the MA or JD programs. Some universities also have an accelerated BA/MA program where you begin studying for the MA degree immediately after the completion of the BA degree. Other universities have joint MA/JD programs (ex. American University, Georgetown University with the JD/PhD program, etc.).Prior to applying for an MA degree, most universities require a suitable GRE score, cover letter/statement of purpose, application, application fee, and letters of recommendation. If you’re applying for a JD program, most law schools require most of the same, BUT, rather than a GRE score, they require a suitable LSAT score. Both also require complete financial aid forms. The exact requirements for a joint degree program varies by school, some requiring both the GRE and LSAT, others allowing you to waive the GRE score requirement with just the LSAT.

Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote “not guilty” if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury “nullified” the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the “conscience of the community” and relied on juries’ “nullifying” to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. John Adams wrote, “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.[1]It is easily understandable that an act of desperation could be criminally forgivable. Would you find someone guilty of breaking and entering if that person was trying to save another's life and at that moment it required access to something at hand but out of reach legally?If your answer is yes, then the message you want to broadcast to society is that personal property means more than life itself. Do not break any laws to save a life as you will be prosecuted and found guilty. That seems a bit out of balance with what is right and wrong.Or perhaps someone is starving, homeless and they steal some fruit from from trees in your yard. You could have them arrested for trespassing and stealing if you go by the letter of the law…. would you? It may seem to be a very different situation than the one described but it isn't. If you would not see making that much fuss about someone taking some oranges off a tree you have just nullified the law in this instance.Prosecutors nullify the law when they choose not to prosecute a factually guilty defendant. Jurors have the ultimate responsibility to do the right thing no matter what the law says and it is in the jury's power to make that decision to nullify the law where the jury sees fit to do so and the judges and prosecutors can cry and scream but there isn't anything they can do to change that.The damages may or may not be material but in this case they do not cause harm or consequence to anyone only property of a bank. In those cases there is also a civil remedy that can be sought for compensation and if that trial was nullified by a jury the plaintiff could file for a JNOV.Jury nullification is necessary in a world of incredible legal complexity where overcriminalization is becoming very common. Laws are regularly twisted in their application and applied in ways that were unintended by the authors of said laws. Prosecutors and lawyers chasing undeserved benefits from the wrong application of law is commonplace and has be recognized as a problem by SCOTUS.[2][3]Jury nullification allows a common sense application of conscience. Where what is right by popular view can correct a technically acceptable application of law that is actually an injustice in societies eyes.UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote: “One can debate whether jury nullification is good or bad for the legal system, but it’s clear that it’s not a crime for jurors to refuse to convict even when the jury instructions seem to call for a guilty verdict. So Heicklen is encouraging a jury to engage in legal — even if, in the view of some, harmful — conduct.” It’s legal, but prosecutors don’t want jurors to know about it because if jurors knew they were free to acquit in the interest of justice, it would weaken prosecutors. (Prosecutors don’t even like billboards aimed at educating jurors.)Of course, prosecutors have essentially the same power, since they’re under no obligation to bring charges against even an obviously guilty defendant. But while the power of juries to let guilty people go free in the name of justice is treated as suspect and called “jury nullification,” the power of prosecutors to do the exact same thing is called “prosecutorial discretion,” and is treated not as a bug, but as a feature in our justice system. But there’s no obvious reason why one is better than the other. Yes, prosecutors are professionals — but they’re also politicians, which means that their discretion may be employed politically. And they’re repeat players in the justice system, which makes them targets for corruption in a way that juries — laypeople who come together for a single case — aren’t.[4]A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the power of jury nullificationWe recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.Me personally, I would likely vote for acquittal but that depends on many elements not provided in the question scenario.. There is nothing more powerful than the instinct to protect one's child. It is an inherited instinctual response that would over ride any logical or conscious decision making process. A parent would do whatever it takes within their scope and reach to save a child. Our laws should not be applied in cases where enforcement of such laws is grossly in direct conflict with our instinctual behavior.As another note, this example for the question isn't a very good one. DA’s rarely prosecute individuals suspected of credit card theft as it is difficult to convict and it is seen as a victimless crime. The onus is on the credit processor to prove or disprove the validity of a transaction at the time the transaction is made.In reality they would have just gotten away with it clean and simple. This is how it is handled nationally not just in Ohio. I would also guess that this is mirrored internationally.The Associated PressCredit-card thieves hard to find, prosecute If issuers cover losses, police may not investigateCOLUMBUS — While credit-card theft in Ohio is punishable by up to a year in prison, the crime is difficult to prove and prosecute, and many law-enforcement officials choose not to investigate such cases, authorities say.Credit-card companies cover losses to merchants but have policies of not prosecuting thieves — even when they are identified, said Columbus fraud Detective Brian Spann.Therefore, many suspects are not investigated because officials see no victims.“We rarely do,” Assistant Franklin County Prosecutor Dan Cable told The Columbus Dispatch for a story Sunday.In the News and Scholarly ReportsWe Are the Government: The Power of Jury NullificationHistory is clear: Juries were supposed to be able to overturn lawsRethinking jury nullificationJury Nullification as a Tool to Balance the Demands of Law and Justice http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2890&context=lawreviewMens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1903&context=californialawreviewPROSECUTORIAL NULLIFICATION http://bclawreview.org/files/2013/01/02_fairfax.pdfProsecutors have too much power. Juries should rein them in.Footnotes[1] The power of the jury[2] The Supreme Court swings in favor of criminal defendants[3] http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/3261697/posts[4] Reynolds: Nullifying juries more interested in justice than some prosecutors