The Concept of Fair Trial

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

Judges should consider the consequence of the danger and the probability that the threat may actually take place in regards to the speech itself. Other judges disagree with this view and complained that the test made the decision about when speech may be limited a matter of degree and that each case could result in a contradictory decision (Cornell, 2006).

In America we have an Adversary System of Justice, which means that criminal trials proceed under the adversary theory of justice to arrive at the truth in a given case. One characteristic of this system is intensive cross-examination of both defense and prosecution witnesses. In a jury trial, it is for the jury, which observes these witnesses, to weigh the evidence and make the ultimate decision in every case—guilty or not guilty. However, not every case makes it to trial in fact, about 80% of defendants plead guilty allowing them to just be sentenced and not have to go through the whole process of a trial. Other cases are dropped, or dismissed if the prosecutor, or in some cases a grand jury, feels that there is insufficient evidence to carry on. Some defendants are sent to diversion programs, these individuals are often sent here because an official involved in the case believes that there is a better way to deal with a defendant than to prosecute them.

In the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms (1982) under section 11, it is stated that a person that has been charged with a criminal offence, has the right to a trial by jury. For many years jury trials have been under constant criticism in regards to the jury’s inability to adequately perform the responsibilities entrusted to them. Many studies have been performed looking into the jury selection process, jury bias, pre-trial publicity exposure and attitudes/personality of a juror, in order to increase the jury’s abilities to perform their responsibilities to present a fair trial. In the case People v. Weatherton (2014), the inappropriate behaviour of a jury member lead to a legal dispute regarding the final verdict. This behaviour lead to a lengthy investigation with the final decision, made by the Supreme Court of California, to reverse the guilty verdict. As a member of the jury, it is important to understand the responsibilities one must uphold while deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

This is one of the most supreme points written in the founding principles of our Declaration of Independence according to the American founding fathers, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. This text in the Declaration of Independence explicitly upbraids King George III for depriving the people’s rights to a trial by jury. American law is focused around centuries of English common law, the collected assemblage of laws that are focused around common sense judgment and decisions and which safeguard the privileges of the individuals. Property proprietorship is a major right of free individuals, and common law creates the tenets we keep. In a lawful argument about property, citizens have a right to a jury trial.

The court determined the speech occurred on campus because the accessed the site at school, showed it to fellow students and informed other students of the site. “The court decided that School officials could punish Justin Swindler through the Fraser and Tinkler standards.”(Hudson 12) The courts emphasize that the school could punish Justin Swindler through Fraser or Tinker standards. “...Fraser because the website was negative and highly offensive.’ ‘...Tinker because the website caused a substantial disruption of school activities.(Hudson 12) The Court emphasizes that Justin Swidler could be punished by the school under Fraser or Tinker law. So in conclusion the court cans are bias to both the school and the

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial

In this case, the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice (core values within the justice system that must triumph over these rights for the good of society). Statements cannot be achieved through police deception and silence

In 2008 through 2011, America fallowed the Casey Anthony murder trial extraordinarily closely (Rawlings, 2011). This case had all of the needed elements to create a one of the most notable trials ever conducted in such a public fashion (Rawlings, 2011). The trial was put on display in fount of the entire country, with every persons feeling strongly as to guilt or innocents, with the majority swaying towered guilt (Rawlings, 2011). With such a public display and strong sentiments, the level of anger that was displayed left no room surprise when a “Not guilty.” Verdict was rendered (Rawlings, 2011).

This paper conducts research on Orenthal James ‘O.J.’ Simpson’s 1994 murder trial of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson-Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman, in which Simpson was acquitted.This trial is one of the most televised court cases in history. Once a well-rounded guy, Simpson born in San Francisco, had a successful college football career at USC, winning the Heisman Trophy. Simpson then went onto the NFL playing for the Buffalo Bills as a star running back. The O.J. Simpson trial was majorly sensationalized due to the fact that he was one of the first african-american sports figure who 's crime was televised through all channels of media. I am going to discuss how he was considered not guilty in how is defense lawyers were able to get the charges acquitted. In this case money certainly bought Simpson justice but in a few other cases money did not buy people with celebrity status justice.

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the

Following such protocol could help in cases where classifying a person’s guilt is based on fact finding by way of fair and honest legal procedures instead of presenting facts alone. Because the rights listed in the Constitution are not simple, accountability and liability must be present for criminal justice officials and authorities. Equality and uniformity should have a place in the justice process.

Sub judice rule is designed to avoid unfair prejudice to the parties to prevent trial by news media, and to preserve the judicial authority of the courts. It is this rule which had created the most controversy over whether it is high time that the contempt of court is reformed to fit the ‘Internet Age’ we live in today. The outdated language and concepts only reiterates that the law was developed prior to the ‘Internet Age’ and the enactment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s 25).