DOCSLIB.ORG

The Right to a Fair Trial"

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Right to a Fair Trial International Symposium "The Right to a Fair Trial" Max Planck Institut für Ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht Heidelberg, Germany 31 January - 3 February 1996 "Fair Trial Standards in the United States of America" by Richard S. Frase Professor of Law University of Minnesota REVISED VERSION, May 1996 A. Introduction Most of the fair trial guarantees contained in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights instruments are protected by law in the United States. Nevertheless, a number of problem areas remain. The following report first provides background information on the structure of courts and criminal laws in the U.S. It then addresses each of the issues of criminal justice identified in the U.N. Questionnaire on the Right to Fair Trial. The impact of global and regional human rights instruments in the U.S. is then examined, followed by some concluding remarks on the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. approach, and the lessons to be learned from the United States' two-hundred-year-long struggle to improve fair trial standards in criminal cases. B. The Structure of Criminal Courts in the United States 1. State and Federal Courts and Crimes. The United States has a federal system of government, in which the power to define and punish criminal offences is exercised by each of the 50 states and also by the federal government. Each state is a sovereign entity, exercising broad police powers; the federal government is, in principle, a limited government exercising the "enumerated" powers specified in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution confers no general police power on the federal government, but does grant Congress the authority to enact laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the central government's enumerated powers. Several of those enumerated powers (especially the power to regulate "interstate commerce") have been broadly interpreted by the courts; in addition, federal government regulations and operations have grown substantially, especially since the 1930s, and Congress has found that the enactment of ever broader (and more severe) federal criminal laws is politically popular. Hence, federal criminal jurisdiction and federal criminal caseloads have grown steadily over the years, and have increased dramatically since a "war on drugs" was declared, in the 1980s. Despite this increase, however, the great majority of criminal cases continue to be prosecuted in state courts, under state criminal laws. Some criminal acts (for example, customs violations) fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction, and may only be prosecuted in federal courts; others (for example, burglary of a private residence) fall entirely within state jurisdiction; and many others (for example, interstate transport of stolen property; most drug crimes, and many fraud and weapons offences) may be prosecuted in either state or federal court. In practise, most of the cases falling within concurrent state and federal criminal jurisdiction are prosecuted by state authorities; federal prosecutors use their discretion to select and prosecute only the most serious crimes, or those which the states are unwilling or unable to handle effectively, for example: crimes involving interstate movement, organized crime, complex transactions, corruption of local law enforcement or political officials, and denial of civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 1 State and federal criminal justice systems are generally very similar in their major features, but quite diverse in their details. No particular state or group of states is widely regarded as "typical," and the specialized criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts precludes using that system to illustrate the entire country. To some extent, the choice of a particular "sample" state is immaterial, since many aspects of state criminal justice are determined by the requirements of the U.S. Constitution 2; in comparison with Civil Law systems (or even Canada and Great Britain), relatively few procedural matters are governed by statutes or codes. The remainder of this paper will focus on the procedural rules derived from federal constitutional 1 Richard S. Frase, "The Decision to File Federal Criminal Charges - A Quantitative Study of Prosecutorial Discretion," University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 47, pp. 246-330 (1980). 2 Richard S. Frase, "Criminal Justice System," Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Supplement I, pp. 132-36 (1992). 2 requirements, with reference to more or less "typical" statutes, procedure codes, and practises found in most states. Specific examples of state criminal procedure rules, statutes, and non-constitutional decisional law are drawn primarily from the author's home state, Minnesota, which appears to be fairly typical in most respects. 2. Crime Classification and the Structure of Courts and Rules. As is true in most countries, the structure of state criminal courts and procedural rules reflects the legal categories of crime. U.S. criminal law traditionally recognizes three major classes of crime: felonies (the most serious category), misdemeanors, and a third category variously called violations, petty offences, or petty misdemeanors. The more serious categories of crime receive more elaborate procedural safeguards. In most states, felonies are defined as offences punishable with more than one year of imprisonment. Such lengthy terms are normally served in large, state-run prisons, but felons may also receive shorter custodial terms to be served in smaller jails operated by local (county or city) political authorities. Common examples of felonies include murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault, arson, burglary, other non-petty property crimes ( i.e., theft, possession of stolen property, and criminal damage to property), forgery, fraud, and non-petty violations of narcotics, weapons, gambling, or prostitution laws. Misdemeanors include less serious versions of the above offences, various public order crimes (drunk in public or other disorderly conduct; violation of building or health codes), and serious moving traffic violations (drunk driving; driving without a license). Many states recognize more than one category of misdemeanor offence. In Minnesota, "gross misdemeanors" are punishable with up to one year in jail, and are treated procedurally the same as felonies (except that the jury need only have six members, rather than 3 twelve). 3 Ordinary misdemeanors are punishable with up to 90 days in jail, and are handled under simpler, less demanding procedures (for example, defendants receive less detailed pretrial discovery of the prosecution's evidence). 4 The least serious category of offences (labelled "petty misdemeanors" in Minnesota) is usually punishable with a fine or other non-custodial penalty. This category includes lesser traffic violations and various minor regulatory offences. Such violations are not deemed to be "crimes" in Minnesota, but they are generally enforced by the police, and some (but not all) "criminal" procedures apply. Such defendants are presumed innocent and must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; there is no right to a jury trial, however, and indigent defendants do not automatically receive court-appointed counsel. 5 Most petty misdemeanor cases are handled by payment of scheduled fines, without any court appearance. Many states (as well as the federal system) have two levels of trial court. The lower court (city or municipal court, magistrate's court, etc.) is a court of limited jurisdiction; it may try misdemeanor crimes, but in cases of felony it may only hold arraignments and certain other pretrial hearings. Felony trials are held in the criminal division of the court of general jurisdiction (county court, district court, etc). Minnesota has a "unified" court system, in which all felony and misdemeanor hearings and trials are held in various divisions of the District Court. A judicial District may hear cases from a single large county, or from a group of several smaller counties. 3. Major Government Intrusions Outside of the Criminal Process. The Questionnaire responses in Parts C through F, below, will refer solely to the processing of adults charged with felony and misdemeanor violations (with 3 Minn. Stat. §§ 593.01, 609.02. 4 Minn. Stat. § 602.02; Minn. Rules Cr. Proc. 7.03, 9.01. 5 Minn. Rules Cr. Proc. 5.02 and 23. 4 brief comments in Part G on juvenile and military courts). These procedures and courts are most often used in the U.S. to impose serious deprivations of liberty and property. But such deprivations are also sometimes imposed by means of non-"criminal" procedures, three of which deserve special mention. First, persons can be seized and detained, sometimes for lengthy periods, under the civil and administrative procedures used to enforce immigration laws. 6 Second, state and federal law enforcement authorities are increasingly invoking civil forfeiture procedures which permit the confiscation of property alleged to be the fruit of criminal activity (especially drug trafficking), or to have served as an instrumentality of crime. 7 Some but not all criminal procedural safeguards apply in civil forfeiture actions. The Fifth Amendment's Privilege against compelled self-incrimination and ban on Double Jeopardy sometimes apply, as does the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Eighth Amendment ban on Excessive Fines; but the Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation and jury trial do not apply, nor
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Current Death Penalty Issues Michael Meltsner
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 74 Article 1 Issue 3 Fall Fall 1983 Current Death Penalty Issues Michael Meltsner Marvin E. Wolfgang Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Michael Meltsner, Marvin E. Wolfgang, Current Death Penalty Issues, 74 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 659 (1983) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/83/7403-659 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 74, No. 3 Copyright 0 1983 by Northwestern University School of Law Printedin US.A. INTRODUCTION In 1976, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld state capi- tal sentencing laws on the assumption that explicit sentencing guide- lines, separate sentencing hearings and automatic appellate review of all death sentences would remove the substantial risk of arbitrariness of previous capital punishment sentencing schemes.I Eight years later, the premises supporting the constitutionality of the new laws appear to have little practical currency. That a set of scholarly contributions from law- yers, criminologists, and other investigators would uncover flaws in the operation of the death-case legal system is not surprising; earlier re- search into the operation of the discretionary death penalty systems raised significant doubts about the reliability, fairness, and necessity of capital punishment and contributed to the Court's landmark 1972 deci- sion in Furman v.
    [Show full text]
  • English No.: ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 Date: 25 November 2020 TRIAL CHAMBER X Before
    ICC-01/12-01/18-1167 27-11-2020 1/7 SL T Original: English No.: ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 Date: 25 November 2020 TRIAL CHAMBER X Before: Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua, Presiding Judge Judge Tomoko Akane, Judge Judge Kimberly Prost, Judge SITUATION IN MALI IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v.AL HASSAN AG ABDOUL AZIZ AG MOHAMED AG MAHMOUD Public Document Request pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence for leave to submit observations as amicus curiae Source: Fair Trials No. ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 1/7 25 November 2020 ICC-01/12-01/18-1167 27-11-2020 2/7 SL T Document to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to: The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Fatou Bensuda Melinda Taylor James Stewart Nicoletta Montefusco Legal Representatives of the Victims Legal Representatives of the Applicants Unrepresented Victims Unrepresented Applicants (Participation/Reparation) The Office of Public Counsel for The Office of Public Counsel for the Victims Defence States’ Representatives Amicus Curiae REGISTRY Registrar Counsel Support Section M. Peter Lewis Victims and Witnesses Unit Detention Section Victims Participation and Reparations Other Section No. ICC-ICC-01/12-01/18 2/7 25 November 2020 ICC-01/12-01/18-1167 27-11-2020 3/7 SL T I. INTRODUCTION 1. Fair Trials requests permission to make submissions as an amicus curiae in accordance with rule 103 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and Trial Chamber X’s 6 November 2020 “Decision on matters related to Defence challenges under Article 69(7) of the Statute.” As detailed below, Fair Trials requests permission to submit a brief in support of neither party but for the purpose of offering its expertise and interest in the law and procedures relating to the use of material believed to be tainted by connection to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Federal Criminal Case Timeline
    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement negotiations and changes in law. This timeline, however, will hold true in the majority of federal felony cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Initial appearance: Felony defendants are usually brought to federal court in the custody of federal agents. Usually, the charges against the defendant are in a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint is accompanied by an affidavit that summarizes the evidence against the defendant. At the defendant's first appearance, a defendant appears before a federal magistrate judge. This magistrate judge will preside over the first two or three appearances, but the case will ultimately be referred to a federal district court judge (more on district judges below). The prosecutor appearing for the government is called an "Assistant United States Attorney," or "AUSA." There are no District Attorney's or "DAs" in federal court. The public defender is often called the Assistant Federal Public Defender, or an "AFPD." When a defendant first appears before a magistrate judge, he or she is informed of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent. The defendant is then asked if her or she can afford counsel. If a defendant cannot afford to hire counsel, he or she is instructed to fill out a financial affidavit. This affidavit is then submitted to the magistrate judge, and, if the defendant qualifies, a public defender or CJA panel counsel is appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Fair Procedures Including the Right to Be Heard and to Participate in Proceedings Training Materials on Access to Justice for Migrant Children, Module 1
    Access to Fair Procedures Including the Right to Be Heard and to Participate in Proceedings Training Materials on Access to Justice for Migrant Children, Module 1 FAIR Project, April 2018 1 Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) promotes and protects human rights through the Rule of Law, by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems. Established in 1952 and active on the five continents, the ICJ aims to ensure the progressive development and effective implementation of international human rights and international humanitarian law; secure the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights; safeguard the separation of powers; and guarantee the independence of the judiciary and legal profession. ® Access to Fair Procedures Including the Right to Be Heard and to Participate in Proceedings - Training Materials on Access to Justice for Migrant Children, Module 1 © Copyright International Commission of Jurists - European Institutions Published in April 2018 The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) permits free reproduction of extracts from any of its publications provided that due acknowledgment is given and a copy of the publication carrying the extract is sent to their headquarters at the following address: International Commission of Jurists P.O. Box 91 Rue des Bains 33 Geneva Switzerland The FAIR (Fostering Access to Immigrant children’s Rights) project has been implemented by the International Commission of Jurists – European Institutions in 2016-2018 and supported by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme of the European Union and Open Society Foundations.
    [Show full text]
  • Tainted by Torture Examining the Use of Torture Evidence a Report by Fair Trials and REDRESS May 2018
    Tainted by Torture Examining the Use of Torture Evidence A report by Fair Trials and REDRESS May 2018 1 Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Fair Trials’ work is premised on the belief that fair Its work combines: (a) helping suspects to trials are one of the cornerstones of a just society: understand and exercise their rights; (b) building an they prevent lives from being ruined by miscarriages engaged and informed network of fair trial defenders of justice, and make societies safer by contributing to (including NGOs, lawyers and academics); and (c) transparent and reliable justice systems that maintain fighting the underlying causes of unfair trials through public trust. Although universally recognised in research, litigation, political advocacy and campaigns. principle, in practice the basic human right to a fair trial is being routinely abused. Contacts: Jago Russell Roseanne Burke Chief Executive Legal and Communications Assistant [email protected] [email protected] For press queries, please contact: Alex Mik Campaigns and Communications Manager [email protected] +44 (0)207 822 2370 For more information about Fair Trials: Web: www.fairtrials.net Twitter: @fairtrials 2 Tainted by Torture: Examining the Use of Torture Evidence | 2018 REDRESS is an international human rights organisation that represents victims of torture and related international crimes to obtain justice and reparation. REDRESS brings legal cases on behalf of individual Its work includes research and advocacy to identify victims of torture, and advocates for better laws to the changes in law, policy and practice that are provide effective reparations.
    [Show full text]
  • Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions
    Reason #1 to Support a National Moratorium on Executions The National Death Penalty System is Seriously Flawed Resulting in Wrongful Convictions and Death Sentences • More than two out of every three capital judgments reviewed by the courts during a 23-year period were seriously flawed. Experts reviewed all the capital cases and appeals imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 at the state and federal levels. They found a national error rate of 68%. In other words, over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences are reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing. This does not include errors that were not serious enough to warrant a reversal. • The federal government would not tolerate an error rate of 68% for any other government function - such as product safety or processing social security claims. Yet it allows this margin of error in the system that can take a person’s life. Only a moratorium puts an immediate halt to the risk of an innocent person being executed. • The error rate for capital cases is much higher than for other types of cases. At the direct appeal stage, serious or reversible error is detected in about 12 to 20% of the non-capital criminal cases that are appealed. • High error rates exist throughout the country and are not limited to certain states. Over 90% of states that have the death penalty have error rates of 52% or higher. 85% have error rates of 60% or higher. Three- fifths have error rates of 70% or higher. This is not an isolated problem but is universal in all death penalty states.
    [Show full text]
  • SENTENCING POLICY GUIDELINES MESSAGE from the CHIEF JUSTICE Entencing Has Been a Problematic Area in the Administration of Justice
    REPUBLIC OF KENYA THE JUDICIARY SENTENCING POLICY GUIDELINES MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE entencing has been a problematic area in the administration of justice. It is one of those issues that has constantly given the Judiciary a bad name – and deservedly Sso. Sometimes out rightly absurd, disproportionate and inconsistent sentences have been handed down in criminal cases. This has fuelled public perception that the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing is a whimsical exercise by judicial officers. These Sentencing Guidelines are a response to the challenges of sentencing in the administration of justice. These include disproportionate and unjustified disparities in respect to sentences imposed to offenders who committed same offences in more or less similar circumstances and an undue preference of custodial sentences, inspite of the existence of numerous non-custodial options, which are more suitable in some cases. Whereas mandatory and minimum sentences reduce sentencing disparities, they however fetter the discretion of courts, sometimes resulting in grave injustice particularly for juvenile offenders. These guidelines recognise that sentencing is perhaps one of the most intricate aspects of the administration of trial justice. It acknowledges that sentencing impacts not just the individual offender but also the community, and indeed the entire justice system. They also seek to enhance the participation of the victim, and generally infuse restorative justice values in the sentencing process. Significantly, they champion the national value of inclusivity by promoting community involvement through use of non-custodial sentences in suitable cases. The guidelines have collated the principles of law that should guide courts in the exercise of their discretion, so that sentences for analogous circumstances are delivered as transparently and consistently as practically possible.
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Tate
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JAMES TATE (SC 16311) Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js. Argued March 13Ðofficially released May 22, 2001 Counsel Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Eileen McCarthy Geel, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene J.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on the Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman, Cruel, Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment in Libya’S Draft Constitutional Recommendations
    Comments on the prohibition of torture and inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment or punishment in Libya’s Draft Constitutional Recommendations I. The Prohibition of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Torture is a crime and serious human rights violation that has devastating consequences for its victim, his or her family and whole communities. The practice of torture is in stark contrast to the rule of law. The abhorrent nature of the crime is recognised in constitutions around the world and in international law, under which torture is absolutely prohibited. This absolute prohibition means that there are no exceptions and no justifications for this crime, even in times of emergency. Libya is party to a number of key international and regional treaties that enshrine the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ill- treatment). These include the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (articles 7 and 10), the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (article 5), the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (article 37). Under international law, states parties to a treaty are bound to implement its provisions and must ensure that their domestic law complies with their treaty obligations.1 According to article 2 UNCAT ‘Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.’2 Libya therefore has a duty to enshrine the prohibition of torture in its domestic legal order.
    [Show full text]
  • Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Bar Council Written Evidence – Public Bill Committee
    Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Bar Council written evidence – Public Bill Committee About us The Bar Council is the representative body for the Bar of England and Wales, representing approximately 17,000 barristers. The independent Bar plays a crucial role in upholding and realising the constitutional principles of government accountability under law and vindication of legal rights through the courts. It provides a pool of talent, from increasingly diverse backgrounds, from which a significant proportion of the judiciary is drawn, and on whose independence the rule of law and our democratic way of life depends. Executive Summary The Bar Council has concerns surrounding various provisions in this Bill. We set out below our thoughts on aspects of the Bill that we believe would merit further scrutiny. Where we have not made comment on clauses, it is sufficient to assume that we broadly agree with those provisions in the Bill. We are not fundamentally opposed to the Bill but believe that some proposals are contrary to the interests of access to justice, the rule of law, and, in some cases, fundamental common sense. We have responded to the following: • Increase in penalty for assaults on emergency workers; • Criminal damage to memorials; • Public Order powers; • Causing serious injury through careless driving; • Cautions; • Sentencing proposals; • Youth justice provisions; • Secure children’s homes; • Serious Violence Reduction Orders; • Rehabilitation of offenders; • Procedures in courts and tribunals, including remote jury and
    [Show full text]
  • PROTECTING the RIGHT to a FAIR TRIAL UNDER the EUROPEAN CONVENTION on HUMAN RIGHTS a Handbook for Legal Practitioners
    PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS A handbook for legal practitioners 2nd edition prepared by Dovydas Vitkauskas Dovydas Vitkauskas Grigoriy Dikov PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS A handbook for legal practitioners 2nd edition prepared by Dovydas Vitkauskas Dovydas Vitkauskas Grigoriy Dikov Council of Europe The opinions expressed in this work are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]). All other correspondence concerning this publication should be addressed to the Human Rights National Implementation Division, Human Rights Policy and Co-operation Department, Directorate of Human Rights, Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law. Cover design: Documents and Publications Production Department (SPDP), Council of Europe Photo: Column of Justice, Piazza Santa Trinità, Florence. © Council of Europe © Council of Europe, 2nd edition September 2017 Printed at the Council of Europe Contents ABOUT THE AUTHORS 5 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7 ARTICLE 6 – RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 9 CHAPTER 1 – ROLE OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: METHODS AND PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 11 CHAPTER 2 – SCOPE OF PROTECTION AND APPLICABILITY 17 2.1. Civil rights and obligations 17 2.2. Criminal charge 22 2.3. Applicability to pre-trial investigation, appeal, constitutional and other review proceedings 27 CHAPTER 3 – RIGHT TO COURT 29 3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Innocent a Possible Verdict in a Criminal Trial
    Is Innocent A Possible Verdict In A Criminal Trial diddleCarotenoidCreepiest imprecisely Hank Chase kowtow whileIslamises indefiniteher eiderdownperceptually Richy so worths or theoretically outspan that thirsts. tempestuously that Dorian equiponderates when Ibrahim isvery blistered. downstream. Aldo still Costs of doing charity with not proven currently outweigh possible benefits. The shade then enters a judgment based on the verdict and avoid jury is released from playing If seen not guilty the defendant in certain criminal lawsuit is released. Clear My evidence What and on his Criminal Record LegalMatch. Did not openly available from retrieving information is innocent a verdict criminal trial in court practice, if the new jersey are not an electronic register. Means that if there ever two reasons given has the ultimate and iron are possible explanations. A The verdict in every person action ever be general. Both a verdict criminal trial is in some cases? That I thought some have resulted in cotton not guilty verdict had the Defendant gone to trial. Does not not guilty go on item record? Or her liable in american criminal than the results from the act trial but likely be applied. In practice criminal trial its burden if proof required of the prosecutor is to prove criminal guilt. If the defendant is found guilty the judge in may case will decide on sentence. Criminal Justice System The Trial in County WA. Anyone accused of fiction crime is presumed under the law but be innocent however they plead. Once a better trial has begun but turn it goes quickly the clean it's penalty for a defendant to obtain may not-guilty verdict from his judge.
    [Show full text]