What is the legal trial in the Anglo-Saxon countries(UK, US)

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder how many of the accused may be tried during during one trial.

In my country, if the defendants are being prosecuted for the same offense, for example, one is accused of murder and another c for aiding in this murder, they are prosecuted in the same process that we do not waste taxpayers' money.

I thought to start law school, I always dreamed to be a judge, then everyone would have to listen to me

I knew that My country law is based on Napoleonic code while Anglo-Saxon is Common law, i don't knew what is difference.

All I know is that in my country there is no jury, everything decides panel of professional judges.
In my opinion, the Anglo-Saxon system is better, there is more drama

common law means that judges can make new law while preciding over a case and that all courts of less juristiction must abide by them unless the lesser judge himself wants to make new law.in that case the loosing party of coarse would appeal and a higher court would rule.like for instance in the klaus von bluloh case new law was made when the rhode island appeals court made the decision that even a private detective needed a warrant to break into a house and collect evidence.up until then american law stated that all police officers or any other lawyer,officer of the court needed a search warrant to collect evidence.accept for a parole or probation officer who is searching a connvicted criminal.but that only goes for parolees for only duration of there parole or probation.

otherwise a private citizen can gather evidence to help with an investigation as long as the police does not ask for the help of a private citizen.the traditional law was that an independent citizens is not bound by the 4th amendment.

allen derschowitz( kauses defense lawyer and harvard law professor) argued to the rhode island state appeals court that it would be unfair for wealthy citizens who can afford a private detective to have acces to private investigaters who can break into a house and search for evidence.when someone who is poor cant afford a P.I.meaning in order to be fair to all citizens NO EVIDENCE collected by anyone who doesnt have a warrant would be inadmissable in a court of law.

the R.I appeals court ruled in favor of allen derschowitz and made new law,making new law is called legal president and from that all rhode island courts must follow that rulling.at that point only a federal court could over rule.however prosocuters cant appeal a judges decision,the appeal is reserved solely for the defendent.so it would almost be impossable for that ruling to be overturned.because of innocent until proven guilty and double jeopardy.
a prosocuter can appeal a judges sentence of a convicted criminal,but once your convicted your now guilty until proven innocent and you have forfitted your rights.so a prosecuter can appeal a judges sentence but never a judges or juries verdict.

look up state of rhode island vs. klaus von buloh

I can't speak for European Law but I can give you an idea of how here in the United States a brief rundown of how the court system works.

If someone commits a a crime and a police officer arrests them, the police officer reads them their Miranda Rights:
Rights to a Phone Call
Right to Remain Silent
Right to acknowledge everything they say will be used against them in court.

The police officer cannot arrest the person unless he acknowledges beyond reasonable doubt that the person committing the crime, was the person.

Once a court date and trail is in motion, it is up for the Defense: (The side of the perpetrator) vs. the Prosecution (The side of the State or Law) to convince the jury (An independent panel of people.) to agree towards a verdict.
It is the job of the defendant to protect the perpetrator and also convince the jury that he/she may be innocent.
It is the job of the prosecution to "attack" the position of the defendant, to prove he/she may be guilty.
It is the job of the jury to decide whether or not the person is guilty/not guilty.


Best Regards,

Jake

Judges making new law? Judges don't make law, they preside over cases. What you are talking about is setting legal president, which is about interpreting the law.

I think it is really important that people are taught correctly the roles of police, prosecution service, judiciary and government. I hear too often people getting them mixed up, especially when they wish to pass blame.

Then that teaching should start with you. You need to learn the difference between law and statute.

Judges make law every day. Sometimes judges make law that completely changes the way that we understand legal relationships. Virtually the entire body of law known as torts is judge-made law. And the single largest area of tort law today didn't even exist 81 years ago. The law of negligence was created out of whole cloth by a judgement of the House of Lords in 1932: Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562.

In the Common Law world, there are two primary sources of law:

1) Statutes. This includes legislation passed by the legislature, and subordinate legislation that is enacted by the executive under the authority of statute (generally called regulations, but sometimes other nomenclature, like "executive orders" is used)

2) Jurisprudence. This includes judgements issues by courts at all levels, (including courts from other Common-Law jurisdicitions, when relevant). This is collectively referred to as the Common Law.

The precedence of sources is clear: where jurisprudence of two jurisdictions are in conflict, the lex fora prevails. Where jurisprudence from courts of different levels are in conflict, the judgement of the higher court prevails. Where the Common Law and Statute are in conflict, statute prevails. So while statute is certainly the precedent form of law making, it is vastly eclipsed in scope by judicial law making. The entire corpus of legislation in Canada from all 14 jursidictions will fit on a handful of bookshelves. Adding the regulations to that will not likely required more than a handful more. But there are entire libraries full of nothing but case reports. A single year's output from the Supreme Court of Canada and the 11 Appellate Courts alone would probably equal the total body of statute law. And that's just one year.

And law making isn't limited to judges. When two people make a contract, they make law. When a person writes a will, that person makes law. When a lawyer provides advice on the conduct of a client's affairs, that lawyer is making law.

As for the conduct of trials, the process in the Common Law world is adversarial. That is to say, each party to the trial will be represented before the court, which is impartial, and will reach decisions of fact based exclusively in the evidence presented by the parties. This contrasts with the Civil Law inquisitorial system where judges, rather than counsel have the primary responsibility for questioning witnesses.

The question of whether or not defendents should be tried together is a complex one in the Common Law world. There is a public policy argument to favour trying defendents together: it saves court time and it saves money.

Defendants are free to petition the court to have their trials separated. Furthermore, prosecutors may seek to separate trials if it is their intention to call co-accused as witnesses against each other. In a combined proceeding, that is not possible, because a defendant cannot be compelled to testify in the defendant's own criminal trial. But the defendant can be compelled as a witness in another trial, and is protected from statements in that trial being used in the defendants' own trial (the actual practice varies considerably, depending upon the protections provided by the jurisdiction concerned).

Judges must balance the policy arguments in favour of common trials with the potential for common trials to prejudice the fairness of the trial of each party. Where the two are in conflict, it must be resolved in favour of the fairness of the trial.