Despite the fact that the 7th amendment is among the lesser known amendments, it created vital rules for the civil courts and emphasizes the supremacy of the court decisions. Based on the provisions of the 7th amendment, in all sits at the common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by the jury shall be preserved and there shall be no fact that is tried by the jury which shall be otherwise be re-examined in any court than based on the rules of the common law. Basically, there are four criteria through which the 7th amendment is applicable. First, the claim must fall under a civilian claim as opposed to a criminal claim. This means that when an individual is seeking for some cash to make compensations for a loss from the person who is being sued.
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.
Innocent defendants who are risk averse cannot be willing to risk going to trial and receiving harsh sentences and instead choose to plead guilty to ensure the receive lenient sentences. It undermines the integrity of the justice system as it allows the government to evade the rigorous standards required by the due process. It allows the prosecutor to take the role of a judge and jury in determining the guilt of the defendant. It also allows the defendant to escape the full punishment for their misconduct by giving them lenient sentences. Lenient sentences offered to those who plea bargain in contrast to harsher sentences for those who are convicted after a full trial lead to disparities in individuals convicted of similar offences.
This is because Danforth feels that if he is lenient with his decisions, it looks as though he is weak and being unfair to the rest who did not get postponed. Since Danforth has authority over the rest of the court, John Proctor is later executed due to Danforth signature. Additionally, he uses the number of cases he has had in court and the amount he has put in jail as a number to hold over peoples heads. The number Danforth claims is a point of trying to scare those who may being lying and show that Danforth is merciless. He tells the open court, “And do you know that near to four hundred are in the jails from Marblehead to Lynn, and upon my signature?”(81).
ISSUE: Should Appellant Jewell have been convicted of possessing a controlled substance despite no positive knowledge of such possession, where Appellant had a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth? RULING: Yes. Trial court conviction was affirmed. Dissent by: KENNEDY,Circuit Judge, with Judges Ely, Hufstedler and Wallace. RATIONALE:
The Court noted that future regulation of pretrial stages with the adoption of police codes and other safeguards of fairness might render a stage not critical and vitiate the constitutional need for counsel. Regarding the case at hand, the Court held that violation of the counsel requirement did not necessitate reversal of the conviction. The conviction could be upheld if the prosecution could show by clear and convincing evidence that the in court identification of Wade as the robber was based on the witnesses ' observations of him during the crime. The Court vacated the decision of the Fifth Circuit and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
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.
One argument against this notion is that it makes the MPAA a red state or blue state issue and politicizes film ratings. However, the committee has to be appointed by some individual and it’s better off in the hands of citizens than greedy corporations that care more about profit than films. Also, most parents don’t want their young children to see nudity or excessive violence in films. This is a non-political position and is nearly universal. Lastly, like the Supreme Court, each rating board members voting history would be a matter of public record so they can be held accountable by citizens for the decisions they make and shamed in resigning for the
 Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent ), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining Disclaimer By: LawInfo When faced with criminal charges, a defendant often has one simple goal. That is, to minimize the potential penalty. Of course, being found innocent at trial, and being aquitted, is the best way to avoid jail time and other penalties.
It does not matter which side instigates the plea bargain, whether it be the prosecutor or the defendant, but both sides to have to completely agree with each other before something occurs out of that plea bargain. Because of the circumstances, I believe that justice was served. The victims will be compensated for counseling based on what Fogle did, and Fogle will serve his
You don 't have to make yourself look guilty. The government can 't take away anyone 's life freedom for property without following steps to give them a fair chance. Also private property can 't be taken by the government without paying fair price for the property. The six amendment what 's the accused have the right to a speedy trial.
You mentioned in your post that whether the defendant is guilty or not, if they are violated by an officer then the violation needs to be put to light. What are some consequences for the defense attorney if he is caught not bringing evidence (that could alter a trial) to court? What are the defendants’ rights that are being violated by the officer? One of duties that is to be performed by a defense attorney according to America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System is to, “zealously represent the client’s interests within the bounds of the law.” If the defense attorney fails to recognize the violation of his defendants’ rights does that corrupt the duty that is supposed to be performed?
RICO has advanced the understanding of crime in criminal occupations and has been able to advance their knowledge of illegal behavior. I also believe that in order for someone to be indicted under the RICO act they must have knowledge of crimes they are committing. In order for the defendant to be liable he or she should have mens rea to establish that the crime committed was thought out. This is important because if the defendant had no knowledge of a connection with any sort of conspiracy they cannot be considered as a conspirator. I think another reason for it to be unnecessary is because the individual must have at least two allegations on them of racketeering offenses in order to be qualified to be accused of RICO.