Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter V. The Anglo-Saxon system of evidence today
›
5.3. Characteristics of the US evidence system

5.3. Characteristics of the US evidence system

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The US criminal justice system has a strong emphasis on procedural safeguards, particularly in the investigative phase.1 The extensive catalogue of individual rights vis-à-vis the authorities is directly derived from the Constitution, which derives from the general regulatory approach that the rule of law is best served through procedural fairness. On this basis, the State should therefore “let the offender go” rather than condemn him through a series of procedural violations.2

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

This approach sees procedures as essentially sporting contests in which the rules of fair play must necessarily apply. According to Pound, “if an offence is discovered in the course of the proceedings, just as in the case of a football match – where five or ten yards are taken back from the offending team – the criminal proceedings must be allowed to be subject to the possibility of a new trial, of setting aside the conviction, or of any protest or reservation to maintain due process.” 3

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

I would like to note at the outset that in the US evidence system, many legal instruments are not regulated by law, such as the polygraph examination,4 which is derived from it, or the “cross-examination” system which is the basis of the trial system.5

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to be confronted by witnesses against him.” This is not, however, a question of confrontation in the continental sense, but of the right to question witnesses and to check their reliability.6

5.3.1. General features of procedural sections

5.3.2. The testimony of the accused as a means of proof. The privileged role of the “right to remain silent”

5.3.3. Specificities of the patronage function

5.3.4. Prohibitions on evidence

1 Numerous studies have been published recently on the characteristics of the US investigative profession. Criticisms of police methods are particularly common. Skolnick, for example, points to the increasing number of police officers who are experiencing the so-called ‘hunt effect’. The essence of this is that police officers pursue offenders like ‘the hunter pursues the game’, where the basic objective is to ‘hunt down the game’, i.e. to catch the offender and obtain a confession (even at the cost of human rights). Jerome H. Skolnick: Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New York, 2011. 151.
2 However, the principle of substantive justice requires that all offenders should be sanctioned, which should not be hindered by consistent compliance with the formal rules of procedure.
3 Markus Geisler: The Design of the Principle of Impeachment under American Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, 1998. 125.
4 I would like to note that the biggest test of credibility is the oath before the court. Csaba Fenyvesi: A szembesítés büntető eljárásjogi aspektusai. [Criminal procedural aspects of confrontation.] https://www.mjsz.uni-miskolc.hu/files/egyeb/mjsz/200801/3_fenyvesi.pdf, 13.
5 Fenyvesi ibid. 12.
6 Fenyvesi ibid. 13.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave