jury trial
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

437
(FIVE YEARS 89)

H-INDEX

12
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (AD3) ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Mark Patrick Hanna

This article compares defamation law in England and Wales with that of Northern Ireland and analyses whether the current law in Northern Ireland is having a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech. At the time of writing, the Northern Ireland Assembly is formally considering adopting legislation based on the Defamation Act 2013 which reformed the law in England and Wales. The article aims to contribute to that debate in Northern Ireland, but it should also be of broader interest as an analysis of the effectiveness of the Defamation Act 2013. The article focuses on three key areas of reform, in both the Defamation Act 2013 and the Northern Ireland Defamation Bill: the presumption of jury trial, the threshold of seriousness, and the public interest defence. It demonstrates that the different approach of the law in Northern Ireland in these areas did not simply occur with the enactment of the 2013 Act, but rather that it started several years before that with a divergence from developments in the common law in England and Wales. The article argues that the difference has been entrenched by the changes in the 2013 Act, and that, in relation to each of those areas, the law in Northern Ireland is now on a singular course and one that can be seen to have a definite ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.


Author(s):  
Alexandra Kuzina

The article discusses the reform of the Spanish jury court in 1995, based on the provisions of the classical jury court of the Anglo-Saxon legal family. The author uses a comparative legal method to identify the features of the adversarial and inquisitorial systems of law, allowing to distinguish between the main models of the criminal process. Comparing the essence of the American jury trial as a representative of the Anglo-Saxon system with its Spanish counterpart, the author comes to the conclusion that the reform didn’t lead to drastic changes, but it only strengthened the investigative nature of the process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 303-315
Author(s):  
Nancy Carina Vernengo Pellejero

The jury is one of the main procedural institutions of the American justice; and it’s especially linked to the judicial independence and the U.S. Constitution. In this study we focus on one of the prerogatives recognized to the accused: “waiver of jury trial”, or the right to choose to be judged by a professional jury and not by a non-professional one, and the possibility of implementing this institution in the Spanish legal system, as we face a law reform in the Criminal Procedural Law, as well as on the Jury Law Act of 1995 by the Criminal Procedural Law Bill of 2020.


2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-633
Author(s):  
Sergey A. Pashin ◽  
Nikita V. Bushtets

The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the legislation governing social relations that develop in the process of compiling a jury when considering criminal cases with a jury trial. The relevance of the research topic is determined by the expansion of the jurors competence from June 1, 2018. Currently, one of the main reasons for revocation of court sentences passed with the participation of a jury is violations committed during formation of a jury. In this regard, the authors highlight the main procedural and organizational shortcomings of this process and make relevant suggestions: a) to improve the legislation governing the procedure for compiling a jury; b) to compile general and reserve lists based on information included in the Unified Federal Information Register; c) to perform video recording of the process [screen broadcasting] of a random selection of citizens from the general and reserve lists by a court staff member when compiling a preliminary list of jurors; d) to stipulate the right of citizens to defer the obligation to appear in court as a candidate for jurors to a later date; e) to apply new forms of sending invitations to appear in court to potential jurors.


F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1237
Author(s):  
Michael Hill

Research evaluation is often understood as something similar to a competition, where an evaluation panel’s task is to award the most excellent researchers. This interpretation is challenging, in as far as excellence it is at best a multi-dimensional concept and at worst an ill-defined term because it assumes that there exists some ground truth as to who the very best researchers are and all that an evaluation panel needs to do is uncover this ground truth. Therefore, instead of focusing on competition, the Swiss National Science Foundation focused on active decision-making and sought inspiration in the deliberation proceedings of a jury trial for the design of a new evaluation procedure of an academic award. The new evaluation procedure is based upon fully anonymised documents consisting of three independent parts (achievements, impact and prominence). Before the actual evaluation meeting, the panel, which includes non-academic experts, pre-evaluates all nominations through a pseudo-randomly structured network, such that every nomination is reviewed by six members of the panel only. Evaluation decisions are based upon anonymous votes, structured discussions in the panel, ranking as opposed to rating of nominees and data-rich figures providing an overview of the positioning of the nominee along various dimensions and the ranking provided by the individual panel members. The proceedings are overseen by an academic chair, focusing on content, and a procedural chair, focusing on the process and compliance. Combined, these elements form a highly-structure deliberation procedure, consisting of individual steps, through which nominations proceed and which each either feed into the next step or into the final verdict. The proposed evaluation process has been successfully applied in the real world in the evaluation of the Swiss Science Prize Marcel Benoist, Switzerland’s most prestigious academic award.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorig Charkoudian ◽  
Jamie Walter ◽  
Caroline Harmon-Darrow ◽  
Justin Bernstein

Diversion of criminal misdemeanors to mediation by district attorneys has been practiced since the 1970s, but research on its impact on critical outcomes like recidivism is scant and outdated. This quasi-experimental study compares 78 mediated cases from a county that diverts cases to mediation with 128 cases in a similar neighboring county that does not, using phone surveys and case review to ask whether recidivism in mediated cases differs from cases prosecuted or treated as usual over the subsequent year. Controlling for case factors and attitudes toward conflict, a case that is not mediated was five times more likely to result in judicial action, five times more likely to result in jury trial demand, and ten times more likely to result in supervised probation or jail time, and mediated cases were almost five times less likely to return to criminal court in the subsequent year than those that were not mediated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 86-93
Author(s):  
S. V. Dyachenko ◽  
Yu. H. Yatsenko

The article examines the features of civil proceedings with the participation of jurors in Ukraine. It is determined that jurors all over the world are persons who, in cases specified by law, may be involved in the administration of justice and resolve criminal, civil and other cases. It is established that Until 2017 (until the relevant amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which essentially became the basis for a new version of the codified act) in Ukraine there was both an institute of jurors and an institute of lay judges. Therefore, it was after the relevant changes were made that lay judges were replaced by jurors, although if we compare the mechanism of their functioning, only the name has changed. It is concluded that the importance of the participation of jurors in these categories of cases is traditionally associated with the provision of additional guarantees of respect for the rights of the individual in making appropriate decisions, given their exceptional importance for the legal status of the person. In fact, the participation of jurors is designed to enrich the court with life experience and values of society, which significantly affects the authority of the judiciary. It is established that today there are some arguments about the inexpediency of jurors in civil proceedings, so most of them are unprofessional, in particular the inability to properly assess the evidence provided by the court, as well as emotionality in decision-making. Such factors are considered more favorable for the accused, which is confirmed by the high level of acquittals with the participation of jurors in world practice. In any case, the jury trial is treated as more humane and gives the accused a better chance of proving his innocence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Ladychenko ◽  
Olena Uliutina ◽  
Liliia Pankova ◽  
Olena Gulac ◽  
Oleksandr Bryhinets

The article analyses the peculiarities of legal regulation of state funding of jury trial maintenance in Ukraine. On the basis of the cited statistical data it was established that the monetary compensation for jury trial in Ukraine is minimal in comparison to the USA, Canada or France. The high level of jury monetary compensation depends first of all on the social and economic development of the country. The conclusion is drawn that the legislator's actions of the recent years are directed at the classical jury trial model, which exists in many countries of the world, with an appropriate level of financial assistance and an appropriate level of logistical support.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document