Elements Of The Legal Adversary System: Dietrich V. The Queen

Dietrich also believed that it was in the discretion of a judge to delay or adjourn a trail for any accused without representation until appropriate representation was found and the trial could advance fairly and justly The issue began the day Dietrich landed on Melbourne soil on the 17th of December 1986 after having travelled to Thailand. At the time of his arrival Dietrich was retrieved and arrested by federal police/officials for having imported a minimum of 70 grams of heroin that he had hidden in a number of digested condoms. Dietrich was then tried for three counts in the Victorian county court one being for importing a trafficable quantity of drugs into Australia.

Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”

Gideon v. Wainwright was a Supreme Court case in 1963 where the court ruled that the courts had to provide counsel to the party being charged if they could not afford one. Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. He could not afford an attorney and the court denied his request for them to provide him one since it was not a capital offense, in that time courts were not required to provide an attorney to a party on trail if the crime was not a capital offense. Gideon was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. He originally sent his request that his trail was unfair to the Florida Supreme Court; it was denied.

David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.

Gideon V. Wainwright The case starts with the arrest of Clarence Earl Gideon who was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Gideon was a runaway, having left home around eighth grade he became a drifter. He wandered around from place to place and spent time in and out of prison of prison for many non-violent crimes. He eventually found some part time work at a pool club, the same club room he was accused of breaking into and robbing.

Canada: A Comparative approach It seems fair that, following a critical analysis of the law in JC, another jurisdiction should be considered in order to facilitate a proper outlook on what may be needed, and what has worked elsewhere. This section is intended to outline the operation of the exclusionary rule in Canada. The Canadian courts rely on legislative enjoined exclusionary rules that are justified by judicial integrity.

On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.

The book A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr explains the predicament of a lawyer who rejected a case that was very risky and complicated as a personal injury lawyer. Through various legal concepts and terminologies discussed in class, the story details how the judicial system operates. Particularly, the case involves victims of childhood leukemia in the small town of Woburn, Massachusetts, where the city wells have been found to be contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (TCE) — a suspected carcinogen and other industrial byproducts. (Glantz, 1998). Two of the largest corporations, companies names, each with a plant near the wells were accused of being responsible.

Although she ended up spending months in jail, the arguments against her conviction on the legal terms of a change in jury member were not only heard out, but accepted, resulting in her freedom. (122). Although she faced unideal consequences under the law, as the jail time and fear of execution were certainly detrimental, they were far less severe than those that would have been expected. Compared to other women accused in other areas, Disborough’s legal consequences were notably light. She did, however, face more harsh consequences from her peers and fellow citizens.

One of the most important benefits, however, is the reduced risk of a compromise verdict. The overall benefit of majority verdicts suit the circumstances for all but the commonwealth laws. (Knox 2002) “When a lone ratbag juror can abort a trial, the time-honoured idea of the unanimous verdict starts to look decidedly unsound.” In the book ‘Secrets of the Jury Room’ Knox broadcasts the ideals of jurors acting selflessly and complains about rogue jurors messing up a trial.

Lawyers also decide what is relevant in court, rather than letting parties decide what they believe to be relevant. Because of this, victims lose participation in their own case. Christie also discusses the types of segmentation and their effects on modern law. I agree with Christie’s views of modern law in regards to reduced participation of parties, the presence of too many specialists, and his view on segmentation. I agree with

The Bill of Rights 6th Amendment In the United States there are rights that have been established, and has been there in place for a long time now. There are some people that break the laws and commit crimes, these individuals will end up being arrested and will eventually have their case heard before a Judge. In fact, these individuals are called the accused. There are presumed innocent until proven guilty, in the United States Governments.

(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment to life for the crime of murder is to serve that sentence for the term of that person’s natural life. The fact that Katherine Knight was sentence to life imprisonment for the murder of John Price reflects society’s standards in that nobody should get away with taking somebody else’s life, especially in the way in which Katherine did. 6 THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ACHIEVING JUSTICE Once Katherine Knight pleaded guilty to the murder of John Price, the court was able to sentence her quite efficiently once all evidence was heard. The efficiency of this case and also the fact that Katherine Knight received the harshest penalty possible in Australia for her horrific crime shows how justice was achieved.

He had murdered a security guard in cold blood. This resulted in Olaf Dietrich receiving the life sentence. This decisions biggest affect was the way the Australian government deals with providing legal aid to any individual who may not have access to legal aid, to people may not be affluent enough or to those who have committed such serious crimes to which legal aid isn’t supplied. The decision also affects the way legal aid works itself and how it works in the Australian legal system.

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,