Runaway Jury Analysis

My final recommendation is that, if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court must make the order unless the court is satisfied that the order is not in the interests of justice which can be seen under section 118 of Western Australia’s the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. In conclusion, I believe the amendment to the jury system provides an incredibly effective delivery of justice while still maintaining the accused’s right of presumption of innocence and right to a trial by jury referred to by Justice

First, the 7th Amendment ensures that citizens have to right to have a court. It also helps us because the common law or civil law court hear their case on the Federal level by a jury. It also helps us by providing a jury trial. For example, in court jury, the case protects and no one can change the factor otherwise it will be re-examined by another court of United States. As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go.

As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.

Plea bargaining Name Institutional affiliation Trial by a jury was intended as a truth seeking mechanism, a means of achieving fairness and a way to hold the government to the principles of the constitution. The Sixth Amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. It gives the defendant a right to challenge evidence presented by the government and provides for a conviction only if an impartial jury finds the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the right to a fair trial, the criminal justice system is largely a system of plea-bargaining with the outcome being decided by the prosecutor (Bibas, 2004). This paper will look at the use of plea bargaining in the criminal justice

According to Nathan Sales, a law professor at George Mason University, “Federal courts agree that Title III’s roving wiretaps authority is constitutional and… provides strong support for constitutionality,” (Sales). This is a clear example that shows that even the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act are not just constitutional, but strongly supported by the Constitution. From this, many see that any attempted claims that the Patriot Act is wrong in the law are based merely on thought. But, there are more than one sections of the Patriot Act that are up for debate. Any arguments against the Patriot Act are destroyed quickly due to the fact that, “no single provision of the Patriot Act has ever been found unconstitutional,” (McNeil).

Werner J. Einstadter provides that “... the overall policy goal of the classical due process model is to administer justice. Therefore, the court will emphasize equality between the parties, protect the individual's sovereignty by assuming innocence, and provide rules protecting offenders against error and arbitrary use of power.” Moreover, this theory against the use of state power illegally. So, this theory forms the opposite theory of crime control. Herbert L. Packer describes “The Due Process Model encounters its rival on the Crime Control Model's own ground in respect to the reliability of fact-finding processes. The Crime Control Model, as we have suggested, places heavy reliance on the ability of investigative and prosecutorial officers, acting in an informal setting in which their distinctive skills are given full sway, to elicit and reconstruct a tolerably accurate account of what actually took place in an alleged criminal event.” In particular, the search conducted by the police officer and the public prosecutors, or correctional officer.

Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though most judges simply avoid the topic and do not tell jurors of their power to judge the fairness of the law and how it is applied as well as to judge the facts of a case.

Rufus Buckley tried to make a deal with the defendant’s attorney Jake Brigance. Since the offer was turned down the case went through the system the proper way and Carl Lee was given all of his human rights that are given to us in the fourth and fifth amendments. Jake Brigance made comments toward the idea of the death penalty and how he believes they deserve to get the chair. It is interesting that Jake Brigance is a strong believer in Carl Lee’s case that due process should be taken into place and he should be set free. Overall the model of due process seems to be the “right” model to practice during any case even though we know that this is not always how the system

“Eliminating plea bargaining will increase the degree of accountability that defense attorneys are held to.” (Source A) If the attorneys become more motivated, the entire community is safer, and there would be a provenly smaller error margin in the courts. Also, from the evidence previously selected, anyone can see that leaving plea bargaining as it is would be to excuse attorneys from any type of hard work or dedication. Therefore, it would be condemning the innocent people who lose in court as a result of the half-caring lawyers. Most people are at least somewhat invested in their own self interest, so no attorney is likely to feel an obligation to perform - they crave the growth of their salary, not allies. It is obvious that ridding our system of plea bargains would force them to work to succeed, and this would result in an increased interest in their clients.

On one hand, there are people like Mary Dejevsky who has written the article “Uber and the “sharing economy” are leaps into the past, not the future”, that believes the sharing economy is unfair, and it’s not a positive trend, since it only benefits certain groups in society. And that especially the poor and the elderly miss out, as they primarily don’t have the technology, which allows them to access it. Personally, I understand the author 's frustration, but I must admit that I don’t agree with him. Now that the opportunity for the sharing economy is available, and people have the chance to pay less and get an experience, they should definitely exploit it. But the truth is also, it 's actually sad that it 's not everyone who gets access to it, but just because there are some people in society who will not benefit from it, that should not affect everyone

As though it is not a fundamental right to have an appointed counsel to those who cannot afford one, Betts v. Brady did bring up rather valid points. The Court goes back to the foundation of our “adversary system.” It claims that a person whom has no funds to obtain an attorney is more likely to have an unjust trial. The court states that much money is used to charge or “accuse” defendants of crimes they may or may not have committed. Prosecutors which are lawyers of the government are to be looked at as a necessity to keep public order. However, it does not make sense that only prosecutors can keep public order without the publics best interest in a poor individual.

Const. amend.V) The 5th Amendment consists of rights that are meant to defend citizens in the event that the Government attempts to outsmart its authority over the people. In other words you are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. We are supposed to be protective of this kind of incidents that happened to Mr. Diaz. These are the facts of the law that these police officers should be following.

Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors. If the grand jury indicts a defendant based on the evidence presented, it returns a "true bill". If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a "no bill." However, even if a grand jury does not indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges