Our Criminal Courts

1931 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 621
Author(s):  
Clarence N. Callender ◽  
Raymond Moley
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Courts

Juvenile Felony Defendants in Criminal Courts

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard A. Rainville ◽  
Steven K. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Courts

Cicero's Law

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Apparent Contradiction ◽  
Legal Realism ◽  
Rhetorical Strategy ◽  
The Way

Why did Roman prosecutors typically accuse the defendant of multiple crimina, when in most standing criminal courts the punishment imposed on a guilty defendant was the same (typically “capital,” that is, a kind of exile), no matter how many charges were proven? The answer lies not in a failure to distinguish between legal charges leveled at the defendant and defamation of his character, but rather in a rhetorical strategy that made sense in light of what was legally necessary to obtain a conviction. The greater the number of charges, the more likely the jurors would be persuaded that the defendant had in some way violated the statute according to which the trial was being conducted. It is true that prosecutors typically argued that the defendant’s prior conduct made it plausible that he had committed the crimes with which he was charged, but in a way that, as much as possible, made his guilt on these particular charges seem likely, and defense patroni attempted to undermine the charges and the character defamation. This answer to the apparent contradiction between multiple charges and unitary punishment favors a moderate formalism over legal realism as the way to interpret Roman criminal trials.

International legal immunities and privileges of the Рrosecutor amicus curiae

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 55-63
Author(s):  
EKATERINA A. KOPYLOVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Foreign Science

The article considers the international legal regime of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors of international criminal courts which are intended to ensure independent and unhindered performance of their functions in prosecuting crimes against the administration of justice. Due to the lack of doctrinal research in this field, whether in the domestic or foreign science of international law, the study is characterized by scientific novelty. Its empirical basis is constituted of the provisions of international treaties governing the immunities and privileges of staff of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court. It is noted that today the state of international legal regulation of immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors is not quite satisfactory as it contains significant gaps. Two possible approaches to determining the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors are identified: the first based on their status and the second – on the functions they perform. Their critical analysis leads to the conclusion that the functional approach is more in line with the principle of equality of arms in international criminal proceedings. As a result of its application, the scope of the immunities and privileges of amicus curiae prosecutors coincides with the scope of the immunities and privileges granted to staff of the Offices of Prosecutors at the international criminal tribunals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document