Tag Archives: Courts

Court Transparency

Posted on by

I spoke with Judge Rifat Abdullahu, president of the Ferizaj Municipal Court in Kosovo. With the help of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the court just received a major renovation. Archives now have a proper place to live, in a storage area protected from the elements. Ongoing case files are now properly secure. There are more courtrooms and judges’ offices.

But the court got more than a facelift. As a participant in USAID’s Model Courts program, judges and administrators have received technical assistance and training.

Kosovo’s citizens have long distrusted the judicial system, Abdullahu said. But he believes his court is ready to increase public confidence in the judiciary. One way it aims to do that is by being transparent. Abdullahu showed me how the court is taking many simple steps to do this. The court now publishes its hearing schedule each day. It also has clear signage indicating the fees for various court services. It has flyers for people to take that explain things like how to appeal a court ruling. Everything is published in Albanian and in Serb, so that the minority Serb community is not at a disadvantage. These things may be small, but they are important.

Abdullah hopes his court will be seen as a model for others in the country and seeks to collaborate with other courts. Sounds like a good idea to me!

My Civic Duty

Posted on by

[guest name="Corey Hewitt" biography="Corey Hewitt works for the Department of Health and Human Services and is a resident of Washington, D.C. He describes his recent experience being called for jury duty."]

A jury box in a U.S. courtroom.Most people dread a summons for jury duty.  It’s usually seen as an interruption of normal daily life. But for me, jury duty seemed like a break from my normal, hectic routine. 

I was at the court house well ahead of my 8:00 a.m. required arrival time, early enough to avoid any long security lines at the entrance.  I checked in and was told to wait in the jurors’ lounge, a room with five televisions playing a morning news program.  I was also given two information sheets: one for emergency evacuations, the other with common questions and answers. 

There was also a business office for jurors to use – only three others were there when I checked it out.  It was very quiet in the room with eight desks, a copier/fax machine, wireless and modem Internet access.  Actually, all juror waiting areas featured wireless Internet. I’m a people watcher, so the business office felt too secluded for me. 

After a while, everyone was called into the lounge for a briefing.  The briefing was a 20-minute slide show.  It explained what to do if you had conflicts that would prevent serving as a juror and also gave details of the selection process and appropriate juror behavior and actions.

After the briefing, a clerk put on a movie, “The Net.”  Five minutes into the movie, I started thinking about going back to the business office.  The clearing of throats, coughing, various smells and a man talking on his cell phone despite a no-cell-phones-in-the-lounge rule, were all getting on my nerves.   “Sir, you’re supposed to go out to the hall,” I told him.  He replied with “yeah, I get it” as he stood up and walked out.

After a little more than two hours, a long list of jurors was called for a panel (my name not included on the list.)  They were told to meet in the hall for further instruction.  Why were they chosen?  Why wasn’t I chosen?  Where are they going?  What are they doing?  What trials might they get to hear? I wanted to know!

Next movie for our waiting entertainment was “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”.  Four and a half hours into the juror selection waiting process, the movie got interrupted by an announcement that there will be another panel selection.  We were instructed that if our name and jury number were called, to meet in the hall for further instructions. I heard my name!  I was excited, thinking this would be my chance to at least be considered!

As instructed, we waited in the hall.  I’ve always wanted to be on a jury, to personally see our judicial system at work.  I was excited and hoping that I would make it through the selection process and be able to sit on a trial, fulfilling my civic duty. But then the clerk announced that we were free to leave.

Many people were happy with the announcement.  I wondered if there was anyone else that felt the disappointment I did.  Although I wasn’t selected, I have to trust that the jury selection process has enabled the trials held today to have jurors with open minds, honest opinions and fair observations.

For more information on the U.S. judicial system, see Anatomy of a Jury Trial.

Law and Order

Posted on by

[image src="http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/4110/pod/071609-051005024529-300.jpg" caption="A courtroom scene on the American television series Law and Order." align="left"]I’m a huge fan of the American television series Law and Order.  For approximately 45 minutes, viewers watch the U.S. justice system in action.  The show opens with a crime, follows the detectives as they track down suspects, and then sits in on the courtroom proceedings.  Each episode usually ends with a verdict.  Is the suspect guilty or innocent?  I always try to guess the outcome (with little success) before it’s revealed.

As one of the longest-running dramas on U.S. television, it’s possible to watch Law and Order at almost any time of the day.  When I lived in France, I was pleased to see it on French television as well, and I believe it is shown in additional countries from around the world. 

Recently, eJournal USA, a print publication available on America.gov, interviewed one of the writers and producers of Law and Order.  One passage of the conversation with Richard Sweren especially caught my attention:

 “Q: Sometimes in the show, justice does not triumph in the end. Often there is some sort of compromise. Sometimes the criminal even avoids punishment. Why does the show depart from this pop culture tradition?

“Sweren: In the real world, innocent people are convicted, guilty people get off, and the vast majority of cases are resolved through plea bargains. It’s not supposed to make you feel good or satisfied at the end of every episode – justice doesn’t always win, the bad guy doesn’t always go down – but to reflect the reality of life.”

Television reflecting reality?  Maybe in some ways, but this is still a television show.  I doubt many real crimes are solved and prosecuted in 45 minutes. 

I also liked the passage that referenced justice systems outside the U.S.:

Q: As a former practicing lawyer and as a writer for the show, what is the message for countries outside the United States that don’t use juries, that perhaps don’t even have rule of law? 

Sweren: Our police and prosecutors are sincere in their quest for justice. They’re humans, and they make mistakes, and personal things get in the way. The system isn’t perfect. Maybe other systems work better in other countries, but I believe ours works well in the United States.

Do you watch Law and Order?  How is the justice system you see in the show similar to or different from the system in your country?

For more information on the U.S. judicial system, see Anatomy of a Jury Trial.

Does Libel Tourism Threaten a Free Press?

Posted on by

Countries define defamation, whether written (libel) or oral according their own legal standards and social norms.

In the United States, the Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) established that the Constitution protects even false statements about “public figures.” To prevail in a libel case, such a figure must prove not only that what an author or reporter wrote was wrong, but that the author knew it was false (or else acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.) By placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff, the U.S. standard maximizes press freedom, but makes it more difficult for an individual to protect his reputation. In Great Britain, by contrast, the burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement. As a result, many British publishers would prefer to settle libel cases, even pulp offending books, rather than risk hefty damage awards, or the litigation costs required to prove “truth.”

So far, a case of different nations/different standards. Plaintiffs, of course, frequently choose to sue authors and publishers in Britain — known to some as “Club Med for Libel Tourists.” But again, different countries/different laws, right?

Enter the internet, and a terrorist financing expert named Rachel Ehrenfeld. Her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—And How to Stop It, was published in the U.S., and not in Britain. But about two dozen Brits managed to buy copies on the internet. Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, named in the book as “alleged to have deposited” funds into terrorist accounts, and a veteran plaintiff in British libel court, sued Ehrenfeld—in British court. Ehrenfeld declined to defend the suit, asserting that she neither lived nor worked in Britain, and that her book had not been published there. Regardless, a British court ordered the book’s destruction, and that Ehrenfeld both apologize publicly and pay $200,000 damages.

American courts normally could be required to enforce a British judgment. But U.S. legislators began to take notice. The New York legislature passed a new law declaring unenforceable in that state foreign judgments contrary to a party’s First Amendment free speech rights. Congress now is discussing a similar law, dubbed the Free Speech Protection Act.

A number of interesting issues here. What is an appropriate legal standard for libel? Should one country’s judgment be honored by another whose standard is more (or less) restrictive? Whose law controls when the internet routinely carries words and images across national boundaries? A lot to discuss. I hope we can hash this out on the discussion boards.

I'm Waiting in the Cell Because I Have to Know. Have I Been Guilty all this Time?

Posted on by

(I’m listening to “Stop” by Pink Floyd.)

For casual spectators, criminal trials can become terribly interesting when new evidence is suddenly brought forward to convict or exonerate the suspect, and expert witnesses suddenly appear out of nowhere to contradict the findings of prosecution and defense witnesses.

But in France, the judicial system is designed to prevent this kind of drama.  I met a forensic evidence specialist in Lyon who is often called as an expert witness and researcher for criminal trials, and she says that unlike in the United States, most of the work in criminal cases is completed before the trial ever gets underway.   Thus, there are few surprises.  But there are more important things than pleasing the crowd, right?

When a criminal suspect is accused, a juge d’instruction (magistrate) conducts an impartial investigation to find evidence that will determine either guilt or innocence.  The lawyers aren’t involved.  Only the juge d’instruction, who doesn’t work for either the defense or the prosecution, is authorized to choose the experts.  After reports are submitted, the lawyers can request other experts to be nominated if they believe there are errors.
The juge d’instruction finally decides when to close this process of evidence-gathering and determines whether there is no evidence against the accused, or if there is the need for a trial.  That decision is then reviewed by another judge.

The trial goes forward with the jury rendering a verdict after hearing the experts testify orally, as well as the presentations by the prosecution and defense, and other witnesses.

I found it particularly interesting that in the case of a final appeal, the Cour de cassation in Paris (France’s equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court), does not look at the specifics of a case, but only at whether the law was respected and applied correctly and at the validity of any new evidence (such as DNA testing).  The Cour de cassation either upholds the verdict or calls for a new trial, but it does not completely exonerate the suspect.