An Impartial Right: Louisiana's Infringement of a Defendant's Constitutional Right to a Bench Trial Through the State's Constitutional Provision Limiting a Defendant's Right to Waive a Jury Trial

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackson T. Brown
Author(s):  
V.V. Berch

The article is devoted to the consideration of the constitutional right to a trial by a jury, as well as the right to a speedy trial in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. It is noted that as of today in Ukraine there is a question of ensuring the actual (real) participation of the people in the administration of justice and the creation of an appropriate mechanism for the realization of such a right of the people. It is established that the permanent evolution of the jury trial in the world as a full-fledged element of participatory democracy allows us to assert the possibility of applying the best foreign experience in this area and for Ukraine. It is noted that the jury trial, which is typical for the United States, is undoubtedly a consequence of the borrowing of English legal customs, but has its own special features. It has been established that the right to a speedy trial should be distinguished from other constitutional rights, as it concerns the interests of society and the justice system more than the interests of the accused. The circumstances that suggest whether a trial is in fact "fast" are rather vague, as each such proceeding is to some extent unique. The requirements for members of the jury are set out in the Jury Selection Act. It is noted that the release of jurors varies depending on the state. One of the grounds for such dismissal is professional activity. For example, doctors, lawyers, public figures, police or firefighters. At the same time, this practice is gradually ceasing to be natural. It is concluded that the jury trial as a form of public participation in the administration of justice is undoubtedly a democratic legal institution. Direct democracy in the exercise of judicial power, which is carried out in compliance with the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings promotes the establishment of citizens' faith in the fairness of judicial decisions.  


2021 ◽  
pp. 69-75
Author(s):  
Veronika V. Yaselskaya ◽  
◽  
Alena V. Grishchenko ◽  

The Constitution of the Russian Federation considers the jury as a form of citizens’ participation in the administration of justice, though it was not widely accepted for a long time. Recreated in the early 1990s, the jury trial suffered from limited powers. Subsequently, the range of criminal cases within its jurisdiction became even more limited. The jury expanded its jurisdiction when introduced to district courts in June 1, 2018. On the one hand, the expanded jurisdiction of the jury improves activities of the court and other participants in the criminal process. On the other hand, the changes did not result in the effective exercise of the right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice, which suggests the necessity of the jury’s further expansion. Since it is difficult not to ensure the participation of the jury in minor and medium gravity cases, the increase in the number of cases brought before a jury should occur at the expense of certain types of grave and especially grave crimes. The expansion of the jury competence on grave and especially grave crimes will not be a final solution to the problem of involving citizens in the administration of justice. In contrast to Soviet Russia, where popular representatives (lay judges) exercised control over the judges in all criminal cases at first instance, today, in most cases, justice is administered by judges alone. The people’s court has advantages over the sole consideration of the case, as it ensures open justice, increases the responsibility of professional participants in the process, and raises the prestige of performing judicial functions. It is possible to return lay judges to district courts for non-grave and medium-grave cases implying custodial punishment. Thus, the effective implementation of the constitutional right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice can be achieved through various forms. Expanding the jury’s competence at the expense of certain types of grave and especially grave crimes, the introduction of lay judges for non-grave and medium-grave crimes implying custodial punishment will promote a broader participation of citizens in the administration of justice.


Author(s):  
Albina Olegovna Shikhovtsova

The object of this research is the constitutional framework of the institution of citizens’ participation in administration of justice, viewed as the fundamental principles of relationship between the democratic state and its citizens. Participation of citizens in court as lay judges is of constitutional nature. One of the forms of citizen’s participation in administration of criminal justice in particular is the jury trial. The goal of this research consists in the analysis of certain aspects of mechanism of exercising the right of citizens to participate in administration of criminal justice in the Russian Federation, as well as in development of recommendations for its improvement.  Leaning on the dialectical, systematic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, structural-functional and sociological methods, the author analyzes the current situation pertinent of exercising by the citizens of the Russian Federation of the constitutional right to participate in administration of justice, and substantiated the feasibility of measures for creating conditions for the more active implementation of such right in the area of criminal justice. The author reveals the reasons of passive attitude of the citizens of the Russian Federation towards implementation of their constitutional right to participate in administration of justice as jury, and concludes on the need for taking certain measures on the federal level aimed at attraction of citizens in administration of justice: increase of the legal culture of population, increase of the level of information awareness of the citizens about the jury trial; revision of legal regulation of the procedure of formation of the jury.


Author(s):  
Oleksandr Byrkovych

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to identify the fundamental values of the Ukrainian people, on the basis of which not only his mentality, but also all national-state institutions, including institutions of justice and justice, as well as to identify trends of influence of these values on the further development of legal foundations of the judiciary and justice of Ukraine. Method. The methodological basis of the study was the combination of principles and methods of scientific knowledge. For the objectivity of the research, a set of general scientific, special-legal, special-historical and philosophical methods of scientific knowledge was used. Results. At the current stage of reforming the institutions of the judiciary and the judiciary, the notion of fair justice, which is formed on the basis of popular national culture, plays an important role. Given the functioning of the modern Constitutional Court of Ukraine, whose representatives are formed by delegation to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the judiciary, this institution needs radical reform as it has repeatedly made political rather than constitutional decisions. Scientific novelty. Based on the analysis of the national tradition of justice, it is established that the Constitutional Court should be formed by public organizations, which are formed by legal experts. There are several higher scientific institutions in Ukraine which have departments, constitutional law research institutes. Their representatives should delegate the best experts in the constitutional right to competitive selection to fill vacancies in the constitutional court. Practical importance. The results of the study can be used in further historical and legal studies, preparation of special courses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document