Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 582 items :

  • "jury instructions" x
Clear All

Appendix: Two Mail Fraud Jury Instructions Federal Judicial Center, Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions The defendant, _________________, is accused of [e.g.: planning to get money by giving false information to Sarah Stone and Rubin Ross] and using the mail in con- nection with this plan. It is against federal law to cheat someone if the mail is used. For you to find _________________ guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved each of these things beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that _________________ made a plan [e.g.: to

eyewitness’s judgment of distance? (Review relevant evidence and relate to the issues.) 2. The circumstances in which the witness made his/her observations Had the witness seen the person on a previous occasion? Appendix D Canadian Judicial Council, National Judicial Institute: Eyewitness Identification Evidence, Model Jury Instructions Appendices 319 Did the witness know the person before s/he saw him/her at the time? How long did the witness watch the person s/he says is the person on trial? How good or bad was the visibility? Was there anything that prevented or

against the conventional wisdom which assumes commensurability between linguistic expression and numerical measurement. KEYWORDS: jury instructions, standard of proof, sure, beyond reasonable doubt, confidence levels Author Notes: My sincere thanks to Roger Leng for casting an acute legal eye over this work and to Craig Callen for his patient and invaluable editing. Introduction The standard for proof of guilt in criminal cases is a matter of paramount importance to the fair and effective operation of the criminal justice system – all the more so at a time when there

-free strategy for the suspect/defendant in the English legal system. Unlike in the US, where criminal juries are in- structed that they may not draw any inferences from such a decision,1 recent changes in the UK mean that English juries are now instructed that they may draw ‘appropriate inferences’ from the defendant’s failure to speak. This paper draws on a corpus of oral jury instructions taken from English criminal trials where the defendant chose to invoke the right to silence at interview and/or during the subsequent trial. It analyses the com- municative strategies

case. Soon after this decision a dispute started between scholars and Courts on whether the “reason- able doubt standard” ought to be defined by jury instructions or could be considered a matter of the jurors’ “original understanding,” that is a “self-evident” concept. Depending on the solution of the dispute, failing to define the standard through suitable instruction could amount to a reversible constitutional error (i.e. a constitutional error that imposes reversal). In 2006 the highly discussed law n.46 introduced the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt


Contents Acknowledgments ix chapter 1. Laws and Judges 1 chapter 2. Why We Need to Interpret Statutes 16 chapter 3. Definitions, Ordinary Meaning, and Respect for the Legislature 50 chapter 4. The Intent of the Legislature 82 chapter 5. Stability, Dynamism, and Other Values 120 chapter 6. Who Should Interpret Statutes? 160 chapter 7. Jurors as Statutory Interpreters 196 chapter 8. Legislatures, Judges, and Statutory Interpretation 223 appendix. Two Mail Fraud Jury Instructions 231 Notes 237 List of Cases 283 Index 285

? Why do we ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence and continue to give jury instructions contrary to the overwhelming consensus that witness demeanor is not a basis to determine the accuracy or truthfulness of their testimony? Many years ago, co-author Jeannine Turgeon attended United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s lecture “Trial by Jury–In Need of Repair” at The Chautauqua Institute. Justice O’Connor criticized various aspects of our current jury system and offered suggestions for its improvement. She opined that “[j]ust because something

necessary and that the traditional trial safeguards of cross-examination, counsel submissions and jury instructions adequately inform juries as to the problems with eyewitness identification. What I do propose is that the expert studies on memory and eyewitness identification be used to improve our identification gathering practices – outside of the courtroom. What Do The Experts Have To Offer? A fundamental prerequisite to the admissibility of any evidence is that it must be relevant. With respect to expert testimony on eyewitness identification the evidence is being


– Recommendations 313 C Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecution Committee Working Group (2005), Recommendations regarding the Use of Eyewitness Identification Evidence 316 D Canadian Judicial Council, National Judicial Institute: Eyewitness Identification Evidence, Model Jury Instructions 318 E Canada’s 1988 Federal-Provincial Guidelines on Compensation for Wrongfully Convicted and Imprisoned Persons 321 Notes 325 Legislation and Case Citations 381 Bibliography 389 Index 417