33. Hearsay

This chapter considers the admissibility of and procedural matters relating to hearsay evidence in civil cases. Hearsay evidence is where a witness gives evidence of facts they have not personally experienced for the purpose of proving the truth of those facts. Hearsay may be written or oral, and may be first-hand, second-hand, etc. Evidence is no longer excluded in civil cases solely on the ground that it is hearsay. However, in practice, trial judges give limited weight to hearsay evidence.

Prosecutors and Sentencing

Prosecutorial decisions play an important, and sometimes a decisive, role in a defendant’s ultimate sentence. They begin with the selection of charges and may end with a recommendation on clemency or expungement of a criminal conviction. The influence of prosecutors over the sentence, therefore, is far more extensive than that of any other official. The charging decision sets the starting point for the sentence range. The prosecution tends to control entry into diversion programs that may spare an offender a criminal record after complying with a set of requirements. Plea bargains, which have become more frequent even in Europe’s civil law countries, usually focus on the type and scope of the criminal justice sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences, mandatory aggravators, and stacked charges provide prosecutors with overwhelming bargaining power, causing many defendants to waive their right to a trial. Judges tend to follow the parties’ agreements and impose the recommended sentence. In many states prosecutors routinely weigh in on parole decisions and determine whether to proceed against defendants for supervision violations. Even in clemency decisions, they frequently submit a recommendation.

Here Come the Judges

We are Ohio state court judges with actual experience in imposing and/or reviewing criminal felony sentences. We are unaware of any expressed objection by Ohio’s judiciary to having more relevant information available to a sentencing court. Sentencing discretion is conferred upon trial courts by the General Assembly through its statutory enactments, and the trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence that falls within the prescribed statutory range. With such wide-ranging discretion the database will provide additional information to a sentencing judge, which will result in a more informed sentence. Justice requires that judges get it “right.” Why prevent useful, relevant, and important information from being considered by trial judges in achieving this goal? Once the criminal sentencing database is in place, for the first time in the state’s history all stakeholders, including judges, will have access to relevant information that can inform their sentencing decisions while keeping biases, implicit or otherwise, in check. This will usher in a fairer, more transparent system that we should all support. As stewards of the greatest system ever designed to resolve disputes and, therefore, as those empowered to see that justice is achieved, we can’t afford to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. We must seize this moment and take this long-overdue step for the betterment of our judicial system and, therefore, our society.

Suspicious minds? Empirical analysis of insider witness assessments at the ICTY, ICTR and ICC

The testimonies of insider witnesses are often key to prosecutions of international crimes, despite significant trustworthiness concerns. However, we know little about the practice of judicial assessments of insider testimonies, that is, which factors the judges consider relevant to relying on insider testimony. With this article, we set out to provide a comprehensive, explorative examination of the insider witness assessment factors used by the trial judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court in 1996–2019. By using multiple correspondence analysis, we show that the factors related to insider witness assessment outcomes are generally similar across the tribunals and tend to focus on the contents of the testimonies, with less attention given to credibility or competence concerns. This research constitutes the first systematic quantitative analysis and cross-institutional comparison of insider witness assessment practice at an international level.

Global Justice: Why not State jurisdictions in transnational financial disputes?

The article brings the debate about Global Justice to the centre stage of the Sovereign Debt Restructuring (SDRs) field. The judicial system that intervenes in sovereign debt conflicts was not on the agenda of the last reform processes activated in this field. In the NML Capital vs. Argentina (NML) trial, judges from different instances and different jurisdictions issued declarations of the same dimensions related to the same object of litigation. The article makes a comparative analysis of the argumentative strategies that judges used at the time of justifying their positions in order to show the tensions in which they incurred. It is explained that: a) these tensions are the result of agents -the judges- that must take decisions in a context of crossroads where the expected option in accordance with usual legal practices would undermine their own position in the field of sovereign debt market; b) these crossroads are rooted in the structural limits of the judicial system in which these agents operate. Contrary to what official statements postulate, it is argued that these limits conspire against the possibility that state courts provide Justice in transnational disputes, in which they must judge another equally sovereign State.

33. Hearsay

This chapter considers the admissibility of and procedural matters relating to hearsay evidence in civil cases. Hearsay evidence is where a witness gives evidence of facts they have not personally experienced for the purpose of proving the truth of those facts. Hearsay may be written or oral, and may be first-hand, second-hand, etc. Evidence is no longer excluded in civil cases solely on the ground that it is hearsay. However, in practice, trial judges give limited weight to hearsay evidence.

Meandering Jurisprudence and Unanticipated Legacies

Assessments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) jurisprudential legacy tend to focus on the ICTY’s relationships with domestic criminal law. This chapter turns a new corner by examining the ICTY’s unexpected footprints in domestic civil litigation, specifically private tort claims brought in the US under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS, or Alien Tort Claims Act). Incorporation of international (including ICTY) materials in US ATS litigation remains a contested matter in which individual judges (both trial judges and appellate judges) demonstrate idiosyncratic behaviour. Some are ‘international law ignorers’, some are ‘international law enforcers’, some are ‘international law translators’, and some are ‘international law creators’. On this note, the ICTY’s legacy also touches upon broader questions of public international law and transnational legal migrations.

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers’ Rules of Procedure and Evidence: More of the Same Hybridity with Added Prosecutorial Transparency

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers incorporates procedural rules from Kosovo’s domestic legal system, innovative and useful modalities, procedural rules, practice directives, and lessons learned from the other international(ised) criminal tribunals. Based on a presentation given on 22 June 2018 at Leiden University’s Grotius Centre Supranational Criminal Law Lecture Series — The Kosovo Specialist Chambers: Comparative Legal Perspectives — this article provides a defence perspective on some of the modalities found in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In the author’s opinion, some of the provisions on disclosure provide greater protections of fair trial rights for suspects and accused during the confirmation and pre-trial stages than the rules of other international(ised) criminal tribunals, while also maintaining the schizophrenic features found in these international(ised) jurisdictions — placing the burden of proof on the prosecution while granting the trial judges discretionary authority to engage in truth-seeking activities.

Community, Respectability and Sanity

This chapter examines, in-depth, the circumstances of individual crimes and perpetrators and how perceptions of these influenced the reprieves process. The varied materials gathered by the Department of Justice when reprieves were considered included correspondence from prison authorities, trial judges, doctors of varying expertise, petitioning letters from various institutions and individuals, and Garda reports. Through a close examination of these materials, this chapter argues that narratives around community, sexual morality, respectability, sanity and the conflation of all of these issues heavily influenced decision-makers’ perceptions of cases. Yet the degree to which these perceptions determined whether or not an individual under sentence of death was executed is difficult to determine and though these cases often caused revulsion among those in decision-making positions, it seems probable that the prerogative of mercy was applied in a sincere effort to objectively judge each case on its own circumstances. There was no conscious tendency to allow extraneous considerations such as class, gender and sexual morality to bear too heavily on cases.

The Right to a Well-Rested Jury

The vast amount of control that state trial judges exercise over the dynamics of their courtrooms is well established. The length of trial days and jury deliberations, however, has received little scholarly attention. Longstanding research has conclusively established the disruptive effects of sleep deprivation on many of the mental facilities necessary for juries to competently fulfill their duties. By depriving juries of sleep, trial judges may be compromising the fair rights of criminal defendants for the sake of efficiency. This Note argues that trial judges must use their discretion to ensure juries are well-rested, keeping jurors’ needs in mind. Further, state legislatures have a responsibility to properly fund state courts and to pass legislation that ensures overlong tri-al days do not impact verdicts handed down.