Procedures in the Justice System - Essay Example

Court Procedures 3 Affiliation: Discuss the constitutional requirements concerning the place of trial. The place of trial is discussed in the Sixth Amendment of the constitution which indicates that the place of trial of any criminal is in the District court of the state where the crime was committed. This is also guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment within the Due Process Clause. In regards to the place of trial, the Sixth Amendment also guarantees that the trial will be speedy, public and tried by an impartial jury as well. The prosecutor however needs to produce proof that the crime was committed within that area where the trial is being held in. This is mostly possible through the arresting and investigating officer’s sworn testimony about the area where the crime was committed being the same area where the trial is being held. This is enough to convince the judge and jury that the place of trial is in accordance with the constitution. Discuss the differences between the constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. Every accused individual has a right to a speedy trial as a constitutional right. There are two major differences between the constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. The first difference is that there should be a test to determine if the right was violated. In the statutory right, the test is carried out just in regards to violation of time periods and nothing more. However, the constitutional right examines factors such as the length of delay, justification of that delay, the prejudice that the delay caused and whether this delay was asserted by the defendant or not. The other difference is in regards to the remedy for the violation of this right. The statutory right depends on the statute provided some of which indicate the defendant may be retired while the constitutional right requires dismissal of charges and failure to retry the defendant on the offence. Discuss the differences between insanity and competency to stand trial. There are two things that are considered in regards to the mental status of the defendant: the first is insanity and the other is competency to stand trial. The two are different even though they sound similar. Insanity regards the mental state of the defendant at the time when the alleged crime took place while competence to stand trial regards the mental state of the patient during the trial which may prevent him from being tried. The competence of any individual to stand trial is protected by the Fifth as well as the Fourteenth Amendments and prevents any incompetent individual from standing trial. Proof is however needed to verify the state of mind of the defendant. What you thought was the most important point in each chapter and why. The most important thing in chapter 11 is the explanation of the role of the judge as well as the prosecutor which may people do not understand and hence leading to them appealing for the wrong reasons such as in the case law discussed below pertaining to chapter 11 and the role of the judge in a hearing. Chapter seven’s most important thing is explanation about the difference between bench and jury trial which is a confusing issue among many people and is a cause of discomfort among defendants and their relatives. Lastly is chapter sic which has a lot of important information from the explanation of competence to stand trial to explaining the right of a speedy trial for each defendant to the explanation about the place where a trial needs to be held in. All this is really important information for the defendant to have without having to rely on his or her attorney to explain (Roberson and Wallace, 2012). Discuss one United States Supreme Court decision referenced in each individual chapter Chapter six enlists the case of Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2899-2900 (U. S. 2010). In this case, Skilling and two other executives of Enron were charged with several counts of dishonesty in serving Enron where they overstated the company’s financials which later crashed and people lost their stocks. Skilling was charged with over 25 counts of securities fraud as well as wire fraud and false representations. One of the defendants pleaded guilty to the counts. Skilling requested for a transfer of the trial venue which was denied by the District Court and the decision affirmed by the court of Appeal. The Supreme Court demanded further proceedings on the wire fraud but affirmed the decision of not moving the trial to another place. The justification was that the jury had been vetted according to the constitution and even after the plea bargain of the defendant, the court delayed the proceedings by two weeks and also vetted the jurors after this period to verify none would let the guilty plea affect the trial. Chapter seven has the case of Capeton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (U. S. 2009) where the coal company was ordered to pay $50 million in damages to the petitioners for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment as well as interference with contract. An appeal was made and in order to ensure that the decision was not affirmed, the Coal Company supported through massive donations justice Benjamin who won the election. Capeton filed for a disqualification of the justice from the hearing but the justice refused to recuse himself. The decision to award the damages was reversed bit later on the case was remanded. Due Process Clause requires a judge to recuse himself when he has direct and pecuniary interest in the case. Codes of judicial conduct are even stricter than the due process clause on matters of disqualifications and hence the issue does not even need application of the constitution to resolve it. Chapter eleven has the case of United States v. Carter, 2011 U. S. App. LEXIS 5398, 1-3 (4th Cir. N. C. 2011) where the defendant was found guilty of several crimes including bank robbery, carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence as well as aiding and abetting. He was sentenced to 1012 months imprisonment. He appealed the case based on the District Judge’s extensive questioning of Carter’s accomplice Tanner which led to the impression that he was partial against the defendant. The ruling after the appeal held that the defendant failed to show plain error on appeal and should have objected during the trial when the judge was questioning (Roberson and Wallace, 2012). References Roberson, C. and Wallace, H. (2012). Procedures in the Justice System (10th Ed.). Massachusetts: Pearson Education. Read More