As France goes, so goes democracies.
Thus we were disheartened to read in the Times of London article here that France is doing away with most jury trials for rape cases. Now five judges will decide the fate of defendants facing a maximum of 15-20 years in rape cases in France.
This is no surprise. Judges are busy people. They don't have time for niceties of advocacy. See Roy Black's epistle on the lawyer's art of advocacy recounted on Mr. Markus's blog here.
The simple fact of the matter is that no one (except criminal defense attorneys) really believes in the presumption of innocence. The rest of the criminal justice system is like an abattoir in which bodies are fed into the maw of the system, processed by judges and prosecutors- defense attorneys are shoved aside like bothersome flies ("your client better plead now before it gets worse" is pretty much the common refrain) - and sentences are issued.
Judges are overly preoccupied with time limits on voire dire, opening, and closing arguments. They need to get to sentencing and clear the case off their docket.
So now France has taken the first step with jury trials- "off with their heads!". This is the thin edge of a large wedge. Watch. Bills will be presented in the US for similar "experiments" with streamlining the system. Miami is about to go to a bond system via numeric bond reports calculated by nameless, faceless, high school equivalency bond court assistants who will plug in the crime on arrest (x amount of points), prior record (y amount of points) and calculate the total (over z= no bond). A defense attorneys' advocacy will fall by the wayside of the math. "I understand your argument counsel, but your client scores 99.4, and that means no bond."
For those of you in 2030 perusing old pages of this blog, you can say to yourselves "wow, that guy Rumpole really nailed it. He was ahead of his time." Then you will enter your client's score on your iPad, submit it to the remote judge, and get the order denying bond a few minutes later.
Would Judge Sayfie have the courage to find some money for one or two retired judges and set up a "trial court." The state would make a plea offer pre-trial. After trial, the judge could depart downwards or 10% upwards. Give it six months. Non-violent offenses only. See justice in action. Breath some life into the 6th Amendment. It is worth a try.
We came across this palindrome:
DOGMA I AM GOD.
Thought for the day.
zzzzzz
ReplyDeleteAbsurd idea in your final full paragraph. Typical rumpole hot take , emotional and not well thought out.
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck is France thinking?
ReplyDelete30 percent of bonds in Miami are way, way too low. 60 percent are about right. And 10 percent are too high.
ReplyDelete@Thursday, January 05, 2023 10:34:00 AM
ReplyDeleteYour comment makes no sense, if its so boring, why did you bother to leave a comment, let alone read the post? Rumpy is a blog-star as are his posts.
Take your zzzz's elsewhere. They are not wanted here.
Sincerely,
Rumpy's #1 fan.
Thursday, January 05, 2023 11:12:00 AM,
ReplyDeleteObviously you are lacking any type of intelligence if you find Rumpy's idea 'absurd'
Ugh how dare you even suggest it isn't well thought out. If anything your comment is absurd. Did you ever think that maybe YOU are the one that is emotional because clearly YOUR comment is 'not well thought out'
Rumpy is a genius, he deserves a medal for his awesome blog! He is a Rockstar when it comes to blogging and don't you ever forget that.
Sincerly,
Rumpy's #1 Fan
It would take a constitutional amendment to end the formal entitlement to jury trials in this country. In practical terms, we're told that jury trials are already eviscerated.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0QvbpHUYuwkaVw6SrnheD1
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/26/plea-bargaining-and-the-innocent
https://www.injusticewatch.org/news/2021/disappearing-jury-trials-study/
Because full scale trials are becoming rare, judges may go years without ever seeing one and few lawyers even know how to try a case anymore.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/criminal_trials_become_so_scarce_that_federal_judge_had_only_one_in_his_fou
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/in_era_of_vanishing_trial_would_be_litigators_arent_getting_valuable_experi
It may be interesting to study countries that previously used juries but then abolished them and how they got to that point.
ReplyDeleteIn an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation, March 5, 1977, which his biographers include in full, the man who has done more than anyone else to create Singapore explains why he rejected Anglo-American system of trial by jury for his country despite the fact he trained as a lawyer at Cambridge. In his first case he was "was assigned to defend four murderers." Fleeing the Japanese, a Dutch woman had entrusted her daughter to a Malay muslim.
She came back after the war, reclaimed the daughter. The Chief Justice, then an Englishman, pending hearing of the case, sent the girl who had been converted into Islam to a convent to be looked after, and hell broke loose. The police force mutinied. Malays and Muslims took out their knives and a lot of white men, just because they were white, nothing to do with the case, were killed. These four men were accused of killing a Royal Air Force officer and his wife and child. They were travelling on a bus from RAF Changi down to town.
Lee Kuan Yew, who had been assigned the case, explains that he did what any advocate does: He "worked on the weaknesses of the jury -- their biases, their prejudices, their reluctance really to find four Mussulmen [Muslims] guilty of killing in cold blood or in a heat of great passion, religious passion, an RAF officer, his wife and child." And he employed "the simple tricks of advocacy -- contradictions between one witness and another, contradiction between a witness and his previous statement to the police and the preliminary enquiry."
When the jury acquitted the murderers, Lee Kuan Kew reports, "The judge was thoroughly disgusted. I went home feeling quite sick because I knew I'd discharged my duty as required of me, but I knew I had done wrong." He thereupon concluded that no government in which he had a say would employ this foreign, "foolish, completely incongruous system." Pointing out that the French and other Latin nations do not use trial by jury, Lee Kuan Kew argues that it is too "alien" to the basic social attitudes of many other cultures, including those of Asia.
In his Memoirs, Lee adds more detail, but the main points still hold. Thus, it turns out that the young barrister defended four out of fourteen defendants; he brought judge and jury to the scene of the murders at night, demonstrating how difficult recognizing individuals would have been in such conditions; and although "Chinese and Indian jurors were never happy to convict if it meant sending a man to his death," the evidence weighed heavily enough upon their consciences that they did in fact convict nine of the fourteen of "causing grievous hurt," though three of his own clients "got off scot-free" (144). In the Memoirs Lee also explains in more detail why he believed his clients guilty, but the conclusion he drew from this painful experience of the jury system remained the same: "I had no faith in a system that allowed the superstition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence" (144).
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/singapore/government/leekuanyew/lky2.html
"The simple fact of the matter is that no one (except criminal defense attorneys) really believes in the presumption of innocence."
ReplyDeleteDo criminal defense attorneys really believe in it either? After a defense attorney successfully suppresses evidence of child pornography and his client goes free, will the attorney be happily inviting that client to social occasions where children are present? Will the attorney happily threaten to sue schools and youth organizations that don't want to hire his legally presumed innocent client?
THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
ReplyDeleteNORTH OF THE BORDER - VERY SAD NEWS .....
I doubt that anyone that reads this criminal justice building blog knew of Judge Linda Alley. She was a judge in Circuit Court in Broward County. Her story is an inspiration to us all. She began her career working for AT&T until the courts broke up the company and she lost her job. She then went to paralegal school and landed a great position with legendary injury attorney Sheldon Schlesinger. She spent 18 years at that firm and then decided to return to school, earn her undergraduate degree, and then decided to go to law school. All this while being a single mom and raising two young children.
She made it through law school and ended up at the law firm of Kelley Uustal in Fort Lauderdale. They are one of the best injury firms in the country right now. She worked on the biggest cases and regularly received multi-million dollar verdicts. She then decided to run for Judge and beat an incumbent in 2020.
Unfortunately, in May of 22 she was Dx with stage 4 lung cancer. She fought valiantly over the past seven months, but pneumonia set in this December and she passed away on Wednesday at the age of 71.
May she rest in peace.
Cap Out .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com