Object for Mistrial after Verdict

[Almon]

Kentucky Law-Object for Mistrial after Verdict?

What is the name of your state?

In Kentucky Law, I would like to ask if a Defendant can Object and then Move for a Mistrial, after the Verdict ?

Thank you, very much, Almon

 

[stephenk]

what was the objection stated by the defendant?

 

[Almon]

No Oath to Tell the Truth

Stephen K,

Thanks, the Objection, by the Defendant, has not yet been Stated. The Objection,( or now that the Verdict has been given, the Reason to Appeal for a Mistrial ?), would be something relating to the Judge not Swearing in the Parties, by an Oath to Tell the Truth, as in all Court Proceedings.

No Oath was taken, many lies where told, the verdict was given and the position of the Defendant, now, is dependant on their ability to "Object" / "Appeal" / "move" for a Mistrial, based on the Judges error, even though the initial proceeding concluded with a Verdict, prior to any Objection being given, during the case, by the Defendant.

Thanks again, I'm the Defendant and trying to see if what I'm saying makes sence, first, and then if you think there is anything that should be done or that can be.

Almon

 

[badapple40]

You make no sense to me. I cannot comprehend what you are stating. Maybe a few follow ups on my part can sort out the question...

What was the original case about, e.g. what were you sued over?

You went to trial, I take it, without an attorney, correct?

And at that trial evidence was admitted and testimony taken, correct?

And you lost at that trial and are now trying to set aside the judgment or look for grounds of appeal, correct?

and you indicate that, at the trial, no one was sworn in, in other words, at no time prior to anyone taking the stand did anyone swear or affirm to tell the truth?

When that occurred, did you object on that basis at trial, or did you remain silent and let them put on testimony that wasn't under oath?

Am I missing anything?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

You make no sense to me. I cannot comprehend what you are stating. Maybe a few follow ups on my part can sort out the question...

What was the original case about, e.g. what were you sued over?

You went to trial, I take it, without an attorney, correct?

And at that trial evidence was admitted and testimony taken, correct?

And you lost at that trial and are now trying to set aside the judgment or look for grounds of appeal, correct?

and you indicate that, at the trial, no one was sworn in, in other words, at no time prior to anyone taking the stand did anyone swear or affirm to tell the truth?

When that occurred, did you object on that basis at trial, or did you remain silent and let them put on testimony that wasn't under oath?

Am I missing anything?

Not that I can tell, except the answer which this poster won't like

 

[badapple40]

Which is that if objections to evidence were not made at trial, they are waived absent plain error, and this isn't a situation of plain error?

Moral of the story: don't go to trial without an attorney unless the amount in controversy is less than it would cost you to hire an attorney.