|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 01:15 AM EDT |
Agreed! ....but she really wouldn't have to do that if she was
like Judges in Germany who don't rely on the litigants to
furnish evidence slanted to their point of view. There the
judges (usually in a 3 judge panel) don't rely on common
jurists that know far less than even they do.
Instead the Judges w/ the help of the client's attorney's
pleadings would find video like this on their own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCz1OALbHw8
Instead the judges get the facts/evidence themselves get and
then the attorney's get to plead/argue their case with the
judges having gotten the facts and evidence themselves. Then
the attorney never get a chance submit altered evidence to sway
jurors in civil cases, like they're allowed to do here.
Is Germany non-adversarial system perfect in all ways for all
cases? No! ....I would still use a jury for Criminal Cases!
....but I would tailor the process to bring in jurists not
picked by the litigants attorney's.
Instead I'd have a panel of Judges pick from a pool of experts
who's expertise pertained to case at hand. Making the Judges
the ones who'd be doing the fact finding, to eliminate partisan
swayed presentation of witnesses and evidence in deciding the
case. Only then could Attorneys plead their case before the
jury in criminal cases. But they wouldn't be left in charge of
the fact finding, that sways so many common jurists without the
expertise to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused in
the first place! ....an old book, but with some real wisdom
hidden between the covers!
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1530&context=fss_papers [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 09 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
| Just send a clerk to do the buying... Bill the parties in the case. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
