The identity parade – through the eyes of the defence counsel

A few Hungarian cases of justice miscarriage demonstrate that the identity parade (line up) method in the criminal procedure could be a “dangerous act”, because the witnesses sometimes give false testimonies, make wrong choices, the authority sometimes fails the recognition process, and lastly the “result” could be a “justizmord”. Based on scientific research, the present study reveals the most frequent criminal procedural and criminalistic wrongdoings. It also focuses on preventing legal and criminal tactical possibilities and suggestions. It can be read mostly from the defence counsel’s point of view. The author declares the lawyers’ legal and factual tasks in this field, especially for preventing wrongful sentences. This is the duty of all legal representatives (detectives, prosecutors, judges) as well.

Constitutional right to receive qualified legal assistance in operational investigative activities

The article deals with the actual problems of bringing a lawyer in the protection of human rights and freedoms, in the implementation of operational investigative activities and the collection of evidence. The authors note that the formal indictment of a person follows an operative-investigative activity, which restricts his rights and freedoms. At the same time, the Federal Law “On operative-investigative activity” doesn’t contain any reference to the defence counsel (lawyer), not to mention the procedure of his participation in the protection of citizens whose right and freedoms were limited by the bodies conducting operative-investigative activity. Based on the analysis of legal acts, court decisions and scientific sources, the authors conclude that a lawyer’s participation as a defence counsel during public operative investigation measures is possible. They also believe that in order to exclude the cases of unreasonable restriction on right to get a qualified legal assistance of a person who is a subject of public operative investigation measures the Federal Law on OIA should regulate the procedure for engaging the lawyer in operative investigative process as a defence counsel. Such regulation is necessary insofar as the OIA itself is a type of activity that can be carried out publicly (Article 1 of the Federal Law on OIA) with the use of open methods and means (Article 3 of the Federal Law on OIA).

Are all complainants of sexual assault vulnerable? Views of Australian criminal justice professionals on the evidence-sharing process

Cases of historic child assault typically rely on the complainant's narrative due to lack of corroborating evidence. Although it is important that complainants give their best evidence, concern has been expressed that evidence-sharing procedures are suboptimal. This study explored criminal justice professionals’ perspectives on the utility of introducing reforms to the evidence-sharing process. We interviewed judges, prosecutors, defence counsel and witness assistance officers ( N = 43) on the utility of regulating the questioning of complainants and of using video-recorded interviews as evidence-in-chief. Many professionals perceived that adult complainants of child assault were vulnerable and supported reforms to evidence-sharing. Primary objections to these reforms were the belief that all adult complainants should share evidence in the same way and the poor quality of investigative interviews. This study illuminates potential barriers to the implementation of reforms which would change how adult complainants of child assault give evidence.

Rape complainants on trial: Defence questioning approaches and witness emotionality

<p>Sexual offending has always been a crime that is difficult to prosecute. Despite efforts to reform the criminal justice process, prosecuting sexual offending remains problematic (McDonald & Souness, 2011). In particular, the trial process has a reportedly traumatising effect on complainants, and this dissuades others from going to court. This issue is exacerbated in cases where the perpetrator and victim are acquainted. Compared to unknown perpetrators, there is more of a perceived possibility that the complainant consented. This puts her testimony under heightened scrutiny and makes her credibility all the more salient to the trial. Cross-examination therefore becomes an important point in the trial. However it is also identified as the point in the process where the complainant becomes retraumatised. While there is a consensus that the cross-examination is traumatic, no studies have analysed how trauma unfolds in the courtroom. This research offers some insight into aspects of cross-examination that distress complainants and potentially inhibit the prosecution of sexual offending. It uses three New Zealand District Court cross-examinations where the perpetrator is an ex-partner. The study firstly presents findings on how defence counsel construct questions and what information they house within them. It finds that defence counsel predominantly ask questions that request confirmation. These questions were used in series to construct inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. They were also used to mount challenges and accusations. Furthermore this study makes preliminary observations that defence counsel questions house prejudicial stereotypes about rape. Such questions misrepresent the reality of sexual offending and serve to undermine the complainant’s credibility. Secondly, the study presents preliminary findings from two cases in which the defence reissued questions in pursuit of a particular response. This occurred where the complainant resisted answering on the terms of the question. The defence treated this as inadequate and subsequently reissued the question. When defence pursued responses in this way, complainants displayed signs of emotionality in the courtroom. It was also found that after continual resistance in two cases the defence concluded the line of questioning with a three-part list. The list challenged the complainant’s credibility. This study makes preliminary observations that complainants display emotion when the counsel tells them their answers are inadequate and reissue questions repeatedly. Initial insight is offered into how defence counsel conduct the cross-examination and how it impacts the prosecution of sexual offending. This study also recommends improved education and awareness-raising for justice sector professionals to address complainant trauma and rape myths in cross-examination.</p>

Rape complainants on trial: Defence questioning approaches and witness emotionality

<p>Sexual offending has always been a crime that is difficult to prosecute. Despite efforts to reform the criminal justice process, prosecuting sexual offending remains problematic (McDonald & Souness, 2011). In particular, the trial process has a reportedly traumatising effect on complainants, and this dissuades others from going to court. This issue is exacerbated in cases where the perpetrator and victim are acquainted. Compared to unknown perpetrators, there is more of a perceived possibility that the complainant consented. This puts her testimony under heightened scrutiny and makes her credibility all the more salient to the trial. Cross-examination therefore becomes an important point in the trial. However it is also identified as the point in the process where the complainant becomes retraumatised. While there is a consensus that the cross-examination is traumatic, no studies have analysed how trauma unfolds in the courtroom. This research offers some insight into aspects of cross-examination that distress complainants and potentially inhibit the prosecution of sexual offending. It uses three New Zealand District Court cross-examinations where the perpetrator is an ex-partner. The study firstly presents findings on how defence counsel construct questions and what information they house within them. It finds that defence counsel predominantly ask questions that request confirmation. These questions were used in series to construct inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. They were also used to mount challenges and accusations. Furthermore this study makes preliminary observations that defence counsel questions house prejudicial stereotypes about rape. Such questions misrepresent the reality of sexual offending and serve to undermine the complainant’s credibility. Secondly, the study presents preliminary findings from two cases in which the defence reissued questions in pursuit of a particular response. This occurred where the complainant resisted answering on the terms of the question. The defence treated this as inadequate and subsequently reissued the question. When defence pursued responses in this way, complainants displayed signs of emotionality in the courtroom. It was also found that after continual resistance in two cases the defence concluded the line of questioning with a three-part list. The list challenged the complainant’s credibility. This study makes preliminary observations that complainants display emotion when the counsel tells them their answers are inadequate and reissue questions repeatedly. Initial insight is offered into how defence counsel conduct the cross-examination and how it impacts the prosecution of sexual offending. This study also recommends improved education and awareness-raising for justice sector professionals to address complainant trauma and rape myths in cross-examination.</p>

Making new meanings: The entextualisation of digital communications evidence in English sexual offences trials

There have been growing concerns about the malleability of digital communications evidence and its potential to reinforce embedded rape myths and cultural narratives that undermine victim-survivors in sexual offences trials. There is however a paucity of research exploring this issue in practice, and none in England and Wales. This article therefore uses two case studies, drawn from court observation research in 2019, to explore how digital communications evidence is used in English sexual offences trials. In both case studies the prosecution argued that digital communications between defendant and victim-survivor constituted admissions of guilt; both defendants resisted this by providing alternative meanings to the well-known colloquial phrases within the messages. Through the process of entextualisation, defence counsel bolstered the meanings defendants attributed to digital communications by drawing upon rape myths and deeply embedded gendered narratives. Defence counsel further employed rape myths and gendered narratives to undermine prosecution entextualisations of the digital evidence. This analysis builds on the existing literature by demonstrating that the malleability of digital evidence extends even to seemingly unambiguous communications.

Advocacy and the Innocent Client

Much of our knowledge about wrongful convictions is derived from known exonerations, which typically involve serious violent offences and lengthy sentences. These represent only a small proportion of offences prosecuted in Canada each year, and little is known about how often innocent defendants may be wrongfully convicted of less serious offences. Recent discussions have begun to focus on the problem of false guilty pleas, in which defendants choose to plead guilty to a lesser offence to avoid the time and cost required to defend their innocence. The majority of our knowledge of the factors contributing to wrongful convictions is based on American scholarship, with less empirical research exploring wrongful convictions within the Canadian context. The present research surveyed Canadian criminal defence lawyers about their experiences representing innocent clients, including their perspective on the underlying causes of wrongful convictions in Canada and their recommendations for reform to the criminal justice system. Nearly two-thirds of defence counsel in this study reported that they had represented at least one client who was convicted despite credible claims of innocence. Many reported that they regularly see innocent clients choose to enter a strategic false guilty plea, perceiving no meaningful or realistic alternative. Counsel described a system designed to elicit a guilty plea, with lengthy pre-trial delays, routine denial of bail, inadequate funding of Legal Aid, costly defence options, padded charges, and false evidence ploys. This research expands our knowledge of wrongful convictions in Canada, their hidden prevalence, and systemic problems that increase the likelihood of their occurrence.

Wyznaczanie składu orzekającego w sprawach karnych

The article discusses the problem of the appointment of the adjudicating panel in criminal cases. The currently binding Code of criminal procedure introduced relevant regulations in reference to this question in Art. 351, which stipulates the following: § 1A judge or judges called on to hear the case shall be designated in line with the sequence of the cases submitted, from a roll of judges of the given court or department, known to the parties. Deviation from this rule is only allowed in the event of a judge’s illness or other important obstacle, which should be noted in the order designating the date of hearing. § 2 When an indictment includes a charge for a crime carrying a penalty of 25 years of deprivation of liberty or a life imprisonment, designation of the panel to hear the case shall, on a motion from the defence counsel or state prosecutor, be carried out by drawing lots at which they shall have a right to be present. The state prosecutor may bring the motion not later than within 7 days after the submission of the indictment, and a defence counsel, within 7 days from when the indictment was served on him. § 3 constitutes act-of-law delegation for the minister of justice for the issuing of the regulation in order to determine the detailed principles of designating the panel to hear cases by drawing lots. Such a regulation was issued on 2 June 2003 r. (Dz.U. of 2003, No 107, item no. 1007). The regulation which was quoted was developed with article 1 point 81 of the act of law issued on 11 March 2016 about the change of the act of law – the Code of the criminal procedure and some other acts of law (Dz. U. of 2016, Item no. 437), but in reality it did not come into force at all, for it was derogated with Article 4 point 1 of the act of law issued on 12 July 2017 about the change of the act of law – The law on the system of common courts and some other acts of law (Dz. U. of 2017, Item no. 1452). On the basis of Art. 41 Par. 1 of the act of law issued on 27 July 2001 – The law on the system of common courts in reference to Art. 20 of the aforementioned act of law issued on 12 July 2017 which amended the law on the system of common courts. The Minister of Justice, by issuing a regulation on 28 December 2017, changed the theretofore binding rules and regulations concerning the operation of common courts (Dz. U. of 2017, Item no. 2481) and determined therein the comprehensive rules as to the allocation of cases to the particular judges by drawing lots, the classification of cases into the particular categories and the principles of the establishment of multi-person panels.

Prawnicze wzorce osobowe na kanwie „małpiego procesu” w filmie Inherit the Wind Stanleya Kramera

The article analyses the film Inherit the Wind, directed by Stanley Kramer in 1960, according to a screenplay inspired by events of the so-called Scopes monkey trial, which took place in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee (US). The filmmakers recreated fairly freely the motive of the controversial ‘trial of the century’, offering the viewers an allegory of political events of the 1950s instead of historical accuracy. At the same time, it was a universal essay on the consequences of institutionalization of ideological and religious fundamentalism. The timeless appeal of Kramer’s motion picture can also be seen in the context of his positive commitment to legal ethics. The plot of the film is a clash of legal professionals, whose personalities are similar to two outstanding lawyers who actually participated in the monkey trial: William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. Kramer’s film presents a positive role model of a lawyer, that is, defence counsel Drummond, contrasting him with the antihero: a lawyer and politician supporting the prosecution, called Brady. The film personalities of Drummond and Brady are reconstructed from the point of view of virtue ethics, using exemplarist moral theory by Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, which enables giving a fuller picture of the created personages than in case of a deontic assessment of the moral validity of their individual acts.

Reflections on the Essence of Proof in Criminal Proceedings

In this paper, the author continues the cycle of his scientific publications devoted to the problems of theory, legislative regulation and practice of cognition and proving of circumstances that are relevant to a criminal case.The paper investigates and analyzes two of the most common scientific approaches to the essence of criminal procedural evidence: a) a narrow approch, i.e. identifying proving with a specific type of cognitive activity of a person; b) a broad approach, i.e. involving inclusion in the content of proving cognitive (cognitive-verifying) techniques and various argumentative and logical operations carried out by the interrogator, investigator, as well as the accused, the defence counsel, the victim and other participants in criminal proceedings.Methodologically relying on the results of many years of research conducted at the intersection of philosophy and psychology, psychophysiology and neuropsychology, the author comes to a conclusion about the feasibility of using a broad approach to the essence of criminal procedural evidence that reflect the continuity of this enforcement activity in relation to the general laws of gnoseology and formal logic. According to the author, the use of this approach allows to maximize harmonization of criminal procedural theory with the real life needs of investigative and judicial practices.At the same time, the paper concludes that many scientific disputes and disagreements about the essence and content of criminal procedural evidence are to some extent factitious and derived from a lack of uniformity in the terminology used. However, the author believes that in modern conditions it is almost impossible to reach any consensus in this part of the development of criminal procedural science. Thus, this circumstance should be perceived as an objectively existing theoretical reality.