The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to establish whether there is sufficient evidence against a person to continue the justice process. There are three outcomes you can get from a preliminary hearing: the charges can be dismissed or dropped, a bail or detention hearing can be held, or a guilty plea can be found. There are many challenges that face the defendants, prosecutors, and the entire court when it comes to the preliminary hearing. Most prosecutors would rather go before a grand jury rather than hold a preliminary hearing. Going before a grand jury is favorable to the prosecutor because the jury only hears what the prosecutor has to say and will then deliberate whether the case should go to trial or not.
Race-Based Jury Nullification Race-based jury nullification has been in the criminal justice system for many years. It is known to be the most debatable topic amongst citizens, whether they support it or against it. A person should be judged on the sources of the law. When race-based jury nullification became noticeable and a serious problem, many communities made sure a specific amount of minorities are placed on a jury to ensure there’s not as many cases where racial biases could ultimately determine the final decision made on the defendant. On top of making sure there is a certain number of minorities constitute every jury, judges encourage jurors to enter the jury room mindful that race has no final say so on the final decision.
If juries continue to use jury nullification, it will result in a weakened democratic system. Racially based jury nullification is and has been a continuous debate for a long time now. Racially based jury nullification may be a benefit in addressing an unfair justice issue while sentencing someone. When it comes to proving that discrimination exists in terms of someone’s race and affects the severity and length of the sentence issued, this is when jury nullification benefits justice issues. If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place.
Also in a preliminary hearing, it is the judge who decides whether there is enough probable cause for a case to continue. A judge can dismiss a case if they feel that there is not enough probable cause. In the end though, the prosecutor could override the judge and still prosecute the case. Grand jury proceedings are only conducted by the grand jury. The grand jury consists of about eighteen people who review cases that are to be presented.
Jury nullification is frequently practiced, but rarely occurs, in criminal trials and theoretically applicable to civil trials too – where it is focus to civil procedural solutions. To spare the innocent and castigate the guilty was the premeditated goal of the criminal justice system. An effect of a race-based jury nullification could be the demising an innocent life or incarcerating an innocent individual (Duane, 1996). Studies reveal that there’s an estimate of three to four percent of jury criminal trials engaged in jury nullification. Sad to say that there’s no means of totally eradicating jury nullification for jurors can’t be controlled
The prosecution, the judge and the defendant all benefit when defense counsel performs in the way the Constitution envisions. The broken public defense system in our State doesn't have to be like this. It can and must be fixed. As a result of these deficiencies, many individuals facing criminal charges are compelled to appear in court without a lawyer at critical junctures, such as when bail decisions are made. This often results in unnecessary or excessive bail being set and keeps people who cannot afford it in jail awaiting trial Many public defense lawyers also fail to: meet or consult with clients at critical stages in their cases; investigate the charges against their clients or hire experts who can assist with case preparation or testify at trial; file necessary pre-trial motions; and provide meaningful consultation before clients accept plea bargains, regardless of whether a charge is appropriate or a viable defense exists.
Stanford v Kentucky was a United States Supreme court case that dealt with the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least sixteen years old at the time the crime was committed. Stanford was 17 years old at the time he committed murder in Kentucky. On January 17, 1981, Stanford and an accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized twenty year old Barpel Poore during and after their robbery at the gas station Poore worked at. Hearings were held to decide on whether Stanford’s case should be held in Juvenile court or adult. The juvenile court did make the decision to transfer his case, therefore; Stanford would be trialed as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a class A felony, capital crime or anyone over the age of sixteen and charged with a felony.
When used, the Three Strikes law treats all crimes the exact same way, which makes the law unjust. For example, someone who raped and murdered a twelve year old girl would receive the same exact punishment as someone who was caught with marijuana. Many people want to put a stop to situations like this, but every day these trials are taking places. The media then tries to persuade the citizens into believing the law is effective by broadcasting different trials that put the person in prison. But, they do not tell the public that they are being put in prison for stealing “videos or pizza” (Messerli).
This does not attest to the validity of the case just that the court will not be able to come to a remedy for the case. This motion has quite a bit to do with legal duty. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/motion+to+dismiss Right to a Trial by Jury, this is everyone’s constitutional right. Any one accused of a crime or being sued has a right to a trial by jury. A jury being a group of our peers, put together to hear the evidence in the case and come to a legal solution or judgment.
Here are the statics: “Since 1989 when the first DNA exoneration occurred, 328 defendants have been exonerated in the United States after being convicted of serious crimes such as rape and murder. The exonerated were 316 men and 12 women; 145 of them were cleared by DNA identification and 183 by other kinds of evidence” (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/May10_04/25.shtml). What went wrong? * Eyewitness Misidentification * Improper Forensic Science * False Confessions * Overzealousness/Public Pressure Eyewitness Misidentification Imagine being a victim so frighten and traumatized after such a hideous unimaginable experience. It can be hard, almost impossible to accurately describe the assailant.