The main reason for reform in the courts, jails and prisons is to protect the innocent and to assure proper sentencing is handed down. American Trial Jury Reform is something members of Congress have sought to bring to the floor for discussion. Reform is necessary for several reasons, one being that in some cases, judges hand down sentences that either do, nor do not fit the crime. When this is the case, most often the judge has prior knowledge of the case that has never been brought forward.
The U. S. Congress and others have rejected any aspect of jury reform, using the U. S. Constitution's original format in defense of hearing the matter. The problem is that the U. S. Constitution seems to have lost its importance with lawmakers and the American people over the years. As a result, very changes have been made when it comes to reform over the years.
In most areas, judges allow jurors to decide the facts on a case. After which, the jury deliberates as to whether a Defendant is guilty or innocent, hand down a verdict, then allow the judge to determine sentencing based largely on precedents and State requirements.
Criminal cases are often now argued in a hearing, or series of hearings when and where possible. Though, if a settlement can not be reached through hearings and mediation, then the next step is typically a trial. One big difference in mediation versus a court trial is that others do not get to review the same files and evidence.
If a trial takes places, judge and jury can often bounce off one another along with the defense and prosecution. When a judge gives instructions, the jury need follow; It can also be good to ask which are advisory, and, which are required. While witness tampering can be criminal in nature, there are also mistakes due to misunderstandings related to judicial instructions.
As all cases involve legal issues and matters which are private in nature, it is essential that there are also guidelines set related to the distribution of such knowledge. Generally, the instructions would be the same as in a court of law in which the jurors are commanded to not talk, or write about the case for a specified amount of time once a verdict is handed down in the case.
At which point, each trial becomes a learning experience not only for the attorneys, plaintiffs and defendant, but all those involved. If a judge desires to hear legal arguments in order to make a decision on any motions which may have been presented, then the jury needs to hear those same arguments to decide the verdict. The jury should also be given all copies of Cds, transcripts or other items presented as evidence during the trial.
Ultimately, when it comes to reform, it is probably something that will remain in the background for quite some time. As to holding court and other officials responsible for actions which appear to be in question, that is up to the citizens, jurors and others who work with the authorities, courts on a daily basis.
The U. S. Congress and others have rejected any aspect of jury reform, using the U. S. Constitution's original format in defense of hearing the matter. The problem is that the U. S. Constitution seems to have lost its importance with lawmakers and the American people over the years. As a result, very changes have been made when it comes to reform over the years.
In most areas, judges allow jurors to decide the facts on a case. After which, the jury deliberates as to whether a Defendant is guilty or innocent, hand down a verdict, then allow the judge to determine sentencing based largely on precedents and State requirements.
Criminal cases are often now argued in a hearing, or series of hearings when and where possible. Though, if a settlement can not be reached through hearings and mediation, then the next step is typically a trial. One big difference in mediation versus a court trial is that others do not get to review the same files and evidence.
If a trial takes places, judge and jury can often bounce off one another along with the defense and prosecution. When a judge gives instructions, the jury need follow; It can also be good to ask which are advisory, and, which are required. While witness tampering can be criminal in nature, there are also mistakes due to misunderstandings related to judicial instructions.
As all cases involve legal issues and matters which are private in nature, it is essential that there are also guidelines set related to the distribution of such knowledge. Generally, the instructions would be the same as in a court of law in which the jurors are commanded to not talk, or write about the case for a specified amount of time once a verdict is handed down in the case.
At which point, each trial becomes a learning experience not only for the attorneys, plaintiffs and defendant, but all those involved. If a judge desires to hear legal arguments in order to make a decision on any motions which may have been presented, then the jury needs to hear those same arguments to decide the verdict. The jury should also be given all copies of Cds, transcripts or other items presented as evidence during the trial.
Ultimately, when it comes to reform, it is probably something that will remain in the background for quite some time. As to holding court and other officials responsible for actions which appear to be in question, that is up to the citizens, jurors and others who work with the authorities, courts on a daily basis.
About the Author:
You can visit tunno.com for more helpful information about Understanding American Trial Jury Reform Protests.
No comments:
Post a Comment