record to show what factors in Delaware

2022See B.E.T., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Sussex Cty., 499 A.2d 811, 811 (Del. 1985) (“While the judge may state his reasons briefly, he must do so with particularity sufficient to discharge his duty to make a record to show what factors he considered and the reasons for his decision.”) (cleaned up). 25 Allah Jamaal W., 543 S.E.2d at 288 ; Artwell, 832 A.2d at 303 . 26 Knight, 167 P.3d 154 (If the defendant wants an incarcerated witness to appear in street clothes, defense counsel must make a timely request and arrange for the witness’s attire.); Watson v. State, 2000 WL 975050 , at *3 (Del.

2020I did so by leveraging, and distinguishing, Defendants’ counsel’s accurate, organized, and measured explanation.115 I believe the Bench Ruling “ma[d]e a record to show what factors [I] considered and the reasons for [my] 114 Id. at 722, 760 . 115 Compare Ball v. Div. of Child Support Enf’t, 780 A.2d 1101, 1104 (Del. 2001) (rejecting a trial court order that adopted a brief in fourteen words without comment); B.E.T., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Sussex Cty., 499 A.2d 811, 811 (Del. 1985) (rejecting a trial court order adopting, without further explanation, a brief “in those portions which are a

2001In Walsh v. Hotel Coloration of American, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458, 460 (1967), this Court specifically noted the then governing Canon of Judicial Ethics No. 19.

1979Wife F. v. Husband F., Del.Supr., 358 A.2d 714, 716 (1976); General Motors Corporation v. Cox, Del.Supr., 304 A.2d 55, 57-58 (1973); Ademski v. Ruth, Del.Supr., 229 A.2d 837, 838 (1967); Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of America, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458, 460 (1967).

2006In Storey, 401 A.2d at 466 , we acknowledged a trial judge’s duty to make a clear and complete record when granting a motion for a new trial: In this jurisdiction the duly to exercise discretion by a trial judge generally includes the duty to make a record to show what factors the trial judge considered and the reasons for his decision.

1985Husband M. v. Wife D., supra; Storey v. Camper, supra. While the judge may state his reasons briefly, Ademski v. Ruth, supra, he must do so with particularity sufficient to discharge his “duty to make a record to show what factors [he] considered and the reasons for his decision.” Storey v. Camper, supra at 466.

1985Husband M. v. Wife D., supra; Storey v. Camper, supra. While the judge may state his reasons briefly, Ademski v. Ruth, supra, he must do so with particularity sufficient to discharge his “duty to make a record to show what factors [he] considered and the reasons for his decision.” Storey v. Camper, supra at 466.

1979Wife F. v. Husband F., Del.Supr., 358 A.2d 714, 716 (1976); General Motors Corporation v. Cox, Del.Supr., 304 A.2d 55, 57-58 (1973); Ademski v. Ruth, Del.Supr., 229 A.2d 837, 838 (1967); Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of America, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458, 460 (1967).

2022See B.E.T., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Sussex Cty., 499 A.2d 811, 811 (Del. 1985) (“While the judge may state his reasons briefly, he must do so with particularity sufficient to discharge his duty to make a record to show what factors he considered and the reasons for his decision.”) (cleaned up). 25 Allah Jamaal W., 543 S.E.2d at 288 ; Artwell, 832 A.2d at 303 . 26 Knight, 167 P.3d 154 (If the defendant wants an incarcerated witness to appear in street clothes, defense counsel must make a timely request and arrange for the witness’s attire.); Watson v. State, 2000 WL 975050 , at *3 (Del.

2020I did so by leveraging, and distinguishing, Defendants’ counsel’s accurate, organized, and measured explanation.115 I believe the Bench Ruling “ma[d]e a record to show what factors [I] considered and the reasons for [my] 114 Id. at 722, 760 . 115 Compare Ball v. Div. of Child Support Enf’t, 780 A.2d 1101, 1104 (Del. 2001) (rejecting a trial court order that adopted a brief in fourteen words without comment); B.E.T., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Sussex Cty., 499 A.2d 811, 811 (Del. 1985) (rejecting a trial court order adopting, without further explanation, a brief “in those portions which are a

2020I did so by leveraging, and distinguishing, Defendants’ counsel’s accurate, organized, and measured explanation.115 I believe the Bench Ruling “ma[d]e a record to show what factors [I] considered and the reasons for [my] 114 Id. at 722, 760 . 115 Compare Ball v. Div. of Child Support Enf’t, 780 A.2d 1101, 1104 (Del. 2001) (rejecting a trial court order that adopted a brief in fourteen words without comment); B.E.T., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Sussex Cty., 499 A.2d 811, 811 (Del. 1985) (rejecting a trial court order adopting, without further explanation, a brief “in those portions which are a

1979Wife F. v. Husband F., Del.Supr., 358 A.2d 714, 716 (1976); General Motors Corporation v. Cox, Del.Supr., 304 A.2d 55, 57-58 (1973); Ademski v. Ruth, Del.Supr., 229 A.2d 837, 838 (1967); Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of America, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458, 460 (1967).

1979Wife F. v. Husband F., Del.Supr., 358 A.2d 714, 716 (1976); General Motors Corporation v. Cox, Del.Supr., 304 A.2d 55, 57-58 (1973); Ademski v. Ruth, Del.Supr., 229 A.2d 837, 838 (1967); Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of America, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458, 460 (1967).

1979When the motion is granted on weight of evidence grounds, even given the restrictive standard herein adopted for the trial court and the appellate scrutiny that may be exercised to assure the preservation of the role of the jury, the trial judge’s “discretionary power is still given the defer *466 ence required by his presence at trial and his duty to see that there is no miscarriage of justice.” Love v. Sessions, 5th Cir., 568 F.2d 357, 361 (1978). 9 In this jurisdiction the duty to exercise discretion by a trial judge generally includes the duty to make a record to show what factors the tria