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.
This is “the practice by law enforcement of considering race as an indicator of the likelihood of criminal behavior” (Robinson 530). The issue of using race to identify people is disputable because minorities feel that it is an act of inequality and also humiliating. However, the Supreme Court supports its legality as long as ethnicity is seen as an important factor that determines the detainment of an individual. Therefore, there are many pros and cons about the legality of this law enforcement technique. During times of war, racial
Jury Nullification Paper John Doe CJA 344 August 2012 Instructor Name Jury Nullification Paper Jury Nullification and it’s affects on the criminal justice system. Jury Nullification is a process that allows jurors to acquit an individual, even when they are technically guilty, and not warrant for punishment. In essence the juror are suggesting that the law in general is unfair or in a particular case. Jury Nullification “Is rooted in English common law and is sometimes used in cases, in which the jury believes a prosecutor enforced an unpopular law or a jury sympathizes with the defendant” (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 265). Because of perceived mistreatment of African American by the criminal justice system, Jury Nullification has become controversial because a number of well-known African American scholars encouraged Black jurors to acquit Black defendants (McNamara & Burns, 2009).
As you can see by the definition, there are big differences between interview and interrogation. The main difference is that interview is asking the witnesses of the crime and interrogation is questioning the ones that are said to have committed the crime. 2. Identify the rule when Miranda warnings are required. “The Miranda rule is to be conducted when the suspect is in custody and the officer is about to conduct the interrogation.” (Hess Orthmann & Hess, 2013).
The occurrence of plea bargaining and pleading guilty even though the defendant professes his or her innocence is a rising and questionable phenomenon in the US court system. Pleas are sought to minimize sentence and the number of trials. (Mousseau, 2008) Pleading guilty typically comes with a “built-in incentive,” lessened sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. The defendant
With the information it is formal, written accusation submitted to a court by a prosecutor, alleging that a specified person has committed a specified offense. The indictment it is a formal, written accusation submitted to the court by a grand jury, alleging that a specified person has committed a specified offense, usually a felony. After you have the indictment sometimes you go in front of the grand jury. Then you go for your arraignment it is the first appearance of the defendant before the court that has the authority to conduct a trial. A trial is a criminal proceeding that examines in the court of the issues of fact and relevant law in a case for the purpose of convicting or acquitting the defendant.
The two models of crime with the aim of contrasting each other for decades are the crime control model and due process model. The due process model is the attitude that a person cannot be stripped of life, property or liberty without suitable legal processes and precautions. Any individual that is appointed with a crime is demanded to have their civil rights confined by the criminal justice organization below the due process model. The crime control model for rule enforcement is founded on the statement of complete dependability of police fact-finding, covers arrestees as if they are already originate responsible. (Johnson, 2002) Role of Law Enforcement Crime control model cites to a possibility of criminal justice which places stress on dropping the crime in company by altered law and prosecutorial authority.
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.
Jury Nullification Angie Coterill CJA/344 Cultural Diversity in Criminal Justice February 27, 2013 LaTraci Spotwood, Instructor Jury Nullification Jury nullification, according to The Free Dictionary is, “a sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.” Jury nullification can take place any time individuals misinterpret the law to what they believe the law means regardless of evidence in favor of or against a person charged with a particular crime. Before the time of the Civil Rights Movements in America, African American people had been accused of committing a crime and be found guilty without any evidence to prove his or her innocence or guilt because only White men served on the jury. Race-based jury nullification centers on the defendant’s race and the makeup of the jury. Racism can be one of the leading causes for the nullification of a verdict.
RUNNING HEAD: Relevant, Reliable, and Competent Evidence Relevant, Reliable, and Competent Evidence Week 2 Jamie Louis Professor Karen Clark Criminal Evidence -14 April 30, 2011 ABSTRACT I am going to discuss the importance of evidence in any trial. There are two types of evidence, indirect and direct. There are three qualities of evidence, relevant, reliable and competent. I am going to talk about each one and give brief descriptions of each to help better understand the differences. Relevant, Reliable, and Competent Evidence Evidence is the backbone to any civil or criminal case; it proves innocence or guilt of the accused.