What is a jury? A jury is group of persons summoned and sworn to decide on facts at issue (Meinhold and Neubauer). The Jury system is made mandatory by law, which calls on citizens to decide on disagreements, and matters in court. The jury is in fact one of the most important and critical aspects of the American legal system. All citizens are given the right to a fair jury trial, because the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led.I am sure these seemed like legitimate claims at the time, however, they are really fears unfounded by any proof. They thought that a government would do all these things but how could they be certain if they didn’t give it a chance? The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them; the separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
“The judge determines the law when, while the jury is responsible for finding facts of the case in most common law jurisdiction”. Is the American jury system still a good idea? Is a good question to ask and in my personal opinion I do not believe it is. The reason why is based on documents B, C, D provides why I feel strong about my opinion. To begin with, the word “sacred crow” is something that is well respected and people do not want criticized.
In short, many of the legal safeguards American citizens enjoy under our constitution would not be guaranteed under the ICC. An issue with effective evidence for defense is also a problem with the ICC. Proff. Alfred Rubin of Tuffs University explains: "documents and testimony needed for an effective defense are hard to expose, there is no reason to expect the Bosnian Serbs to publish their internal records, or that the Serbian Serbs would want them". Diminished sovereignty Proponents for the ICC also argue the court is meant to compliment the states own criminal justice system, and is
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
His decisions make a difference between a speedy, unfair case and a long, fair case. He knows what kind of lawyer Atticus is, and chooses him to defend Tom because his past. He knows that Atticus will work his hardest to put in a good fight for Tom, regardless of his skin color. Although during the case Judge Taylor looks to be not paying attention, he’s listening very well. Judge Taylor ends up being very helpful towards Tom; no other white person besides Atticus would take the time to think about a black man.
However, there is currently no power for the prosecution to apply to overturn a verdict of acquittal entered at trial. Some of the main instances where the prosecution can seek an appeal or a reviewed. (p. 11) Even though we are being protected under the Fifth Amendment by the United States constitution, it may not give justice to those individuals. After doing this research on double jeopardy, I found that double jeopardy was established by the United States constitutional it come from Fifth Amendment. It protects individual against a second prosecution for the same crime, it also protects us multiple punishments by same crime.
I disagree with plea bargaining for the fact that if they did something once and get a plea bargain many will think of it as they got away with something, also they may think if they do something again they will think they can get another plea bargain deal. Topic 2: In Court - What would you do? Wow this is a difficult situation. I would not tell because… CI’s play a vital role in the investigation of many types of crimes, especially drug trafficking and other varieties of criminal collusion. The information they furnish tends to be quite accurate, as demonstrated by the high percentage of productive search warrants
The class biased judge or prosecutor, by contrast, is the legal equivalent of going to the casino where the odds inherently favor the house and are unlikely to change. This is not to say that rich people don't commit crimes. They do commit crimes, including violent, sex and drugs crimes, just like poor people do. The difference is that they are treated quite differently than poor people charged with, and convicted of, similar crimes. Just as it has been since the antebellum era, crimes that cross class lines (i.e., ones that rich people often commit too) will never see harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
A writ of habeas corpus is a directive from a court requiring the government to justify the imprisonment of a citizen. Because of the writ of habeas corpus guarantee, an individual cannot be held for more than a short period of time without being formally charged with a crime. (McNamara, 2010) The Due process clause also affords the accused of the right to trial by a jury of ones peers. These case are handled so that in a federal proceeding formal charges can not be levied without a grand jury hearing where an indictment must be issued. The jury trial and grand jury guarantees are intended to protect private citizens from over-zealous police officers, prosecutors and judges.