Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:49 pm
Time: 10:49 pm
Results for criminal defendants
9 results foundAuthor: Farley, Erin J. Title: Improving Courtroom Communication: A Procedural Justice Experiment in Milwaukee Summary: Research indicates that litigants are more likely to leave court with a positive impression of their experience and to comply with court orders in the future when they perceive the court process as fair. This research underlines the importance of procedural justice. In court settings, procedural justice concerns the role of fair and respectful procedures and interpersonal treatment in shaping assessments of legal authorities and reactions to specific case outcomes. In 2011, with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Center for Court Innovation and the National Judicial College launched a pilot demonstration project at the Milwaukee County Criminal Court with the goal of enhancing defendant perceptions of procedural justice by improving the oral, written, and nonverbal communication used by judges in the courtroom. In the initial months of the project, Center staff worked with a group of experts - judges, legal theorists, communications experts, and others - to develop a one-day training for judges and other court staff that aimed to improve courtroom communication practices. Seven Milwaukee judges from misdemeanor and felony courtrooms were recruited to participate in the demonstration (in addition to representatives from partner agencies such as the public defender's office and the district attorney's office), which involved attending the project training, then developing and implementing individualized action plans to improve their communication with defendants. This report presents research findings from a quasi-experimental evaluation of the demonstration project as well as an analysis of the specific types of perceptions, courtroom actors, and defendant characteristics that play a role in shaping dynamics associated with procedural justice. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2014. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20Courtroom%20Communication.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20Courtroom%20Communication.pdf Shelf Number: 132202 Keywords: Communications Court PersonnelCourt ProceduresCourtsCriminal DefendantsJudgesProcedural Justice |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Building Trust: How our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic defendants Summary: Widespread distrust among British-born Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) people towards the British justice system is having a negative impact on the legitimacy of our criminal courts. Our report looks at the origins of the lack of trust in the system, why perceptions of fairness and trust in the justice system matter and what can be done to improve the experience of court for BAME defendants. Why trust matters Trust in the fairness of our courts is key to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Our courts are charged with guaranteeing our fair and equal treatment before the law.While the British judicial system has a reputation as one of the fairest in the world, our criminal justice system does not command the trust of our Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) citizens. A majority (51%) of British-born BAME people believe that the criminal justice system discriminates against particular groups and individuals, compared to only 35% of the British-born white population. This lack of trust has two specific negative consequences: It may be leading to BAME defendants receiving more severe sentences by making them less likely to plead guilty. Defendants who plead guilty at the first opportunity receive a one-third reduction in their sentence. But male BAME defendants are 52% more likely to plead not guilty in Crown Courts than similar white defendants. Perceptions of unfair treatment within the court process and lower levels of trust in the courts are likely to increase the chances that BAME offenders will go on to offend again. How to build trust We reviewed approaches to building trust and tackling racial disparity in four similar countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. Having analysed the way other countries address this issue, our report recommends that our courts can improve the experience of court in the following ways: Ministry of Justice should work with Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service(HMCTS) can expand the existing data on racial disparity in the adult criminal court system. The Ministry of Justice should require each local justice area bring together agencies from across the criminal justice system to look at their local rates of racial disparity and produce action plans. HMCTS should ensure that making the court process feel fairer for all defendants is at the heart of its court reform programme by providing clearer explanations of the court process, training judges, magistrates and court staff in better courtroom engagement and introducing more local, pop-up courts in civic buildings in accessible locations. HMCTS court reform programme should ensure that the criminal court system engages and understands the communities within which it works by introducing ways of measuring the perceptions of fairness of victims, witnesses, and defendants in the court process. Details: London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Building-Trust.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Building-Trust.pdf Shelf Number: 144733 Keywords: BiasCourt ReformCriminal CourtCriminal DefendantsMinority GroupsRacial DiscriminationRacial DisparitiesTrust |
Author: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights Title: Pre-Trial Detention in Poland Summary: 1. As of 31 October 2015, 4,356 people remain in prisons as pre-trial detainees in Poland. At the same time, the overall prison population in the country amounts to 72 195. This means that pre-trial detainees constitute 6.0 per cent of all detainees. Even though this percentage seems low and the number of motions for pre-trial detention decreased by almost 30% between 2009- 2014, the research revealed that Poland still faces serious challenges with respect to pre-trial detention. 2. As part of an EU funded project, a common research methodology was applied in 10 EU Member States, with research data gathered through the monitoring of PTD hearings, analysing case files, as well as surveying defence lawyers and interviewing judges and prosecutors. In the course of the Polish research, 4 PTD hearings were observed, 70 case-files analysed, 24 defence lawyers surveyed, and 9 judges and 7 prosecutors interviewed. 3. On 1 July 2015, a fundamental reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure and important changes to the Criminal Code entered into force. The reform introduced an adversarial model of proceedings, which places more emphasis on the activity of prosecutors and lawyers, and leaves the judge as an impartial arbitrator. It is important to view the results of the research in the light of these recent legislative changes, which address several of the identified limitations to the fairness of the proceedings. The key findings regarding the pre-trial detention decision-making in Poland were as follows: 4. Decision-making procedure: According to the law, before applying a preventive measure the court or the prosecutor shall hear the defendant. This means that the defendant has to be present at the first pre-trial detention hearing. This obligation does not, however, extend to other pre-trial detention hearings, which is why the equality of arms may not be secured throughout the whole pre-trial detention proceedings. The research showed that the defendant, if not in hiding or otherwise unavailable to the justice system, is present at the first pre-trial detention hearing. The defendant is not always present at other pre-trial detention hearings, especially if he has been appointed a lawyer. Equally, defendants who do attend hearings are often not represented by a lawyer. Additionally, the defence's preparation of the hearing is sometimes limited by insufficient access to the case files. It should, however, be noted that the regulation on access to case files has recently been changed as a result of legislative changes in the European Union and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, The access has been widened for the defendant. Still, the majority of lawyers surveyed explained that they have 30 minutes or less to prepare for the hearing, with access to the case file. 5. The substance of decisions: Case file research revealed that the risk of the suspect perverting the course of justice, the risk of the suspect absconding and the fact that a severe penalty may be imposed on the suspect are the most commonly used justifications for ordering pre-trial detention. The reasoning given is often formulaic and not tailored to the specific case, repeating the arguments raised by the prosecution. This can be partly explained with the swiftness of the proceedings which limits the time for judges to read the case file and forces them to rely on the evidence provided by the prosecution. However, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were changed in relation to the content of justifications of pre-trial detention orders. The amendments may contribute to a more careful and diligent judicial consideration of matters that involve pre-trial detention, as judges will be obliged to refer in their justifications directly to the circumstances listed in the new provision. We hope that the explicit designation of the assumed line of reasoning which should accompany judicial resolution of pre-trial detention matters will persuade courts to examine more thoroughly whether a need to apply pre-trial detention actually exists. 6. Use of alternatives to detention: The conducted research and official statistics show that police supervision and money bail are the most commonly used non-custodial, preventive measures. At the same time, the interviewed judges and prosecutors do not perceive noncustodial preventive measures as effective and trustworthy alternatives to pre-trial detention. What is more, case file research and surveys conducted among defence practitioners show that judicial consideration of alternatives to detention is limited to a single-sentence argument that such alternatives would not protect the integrity of the proceedings. 7. Review of pre-trial detention: The success rate of complaints against pre-trial detention orders of regional courts was about 3% in 2014. Defence practitioners surveyed complained of the automatism and superficiality of judicial decisions which lack proper justifications based on the facts of the case and substantiated presumptions, even in cases being reviewed and appealed against. The case files research confirmed the notion that courts of higher instance rarely change the decisions of lower level courts. The decisions of higher level courts often repeat previous decisions. Defence practitioners also commented in the survey that reviews are not frequent enough to take account of changed circumstances of the case or other factors. Preparation of review is often also challenged by the defence's insufficient access to the case file. The majority of lawyers surveyed believe that the proceedings and investigations are not conducted more diligently and effectively because a pre-trial detainee is involved. 8. Recommendations The conclusions of the research indicate that the practice of pre-trial detention decision-making in Poland falls short of the European Court of Human Rights standards in a number of areas. In light of these findings, the main recommendations are the following: a. The legislator should consider clarifying the prerequisites for pre-trial detention contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. b. The legislator should introduce a maximum duration of pre-trial detention. Optionally, the authority to extend the duration of pre-trial detention beyond the limit in exceptional circumstances should be vested in the Supreme Court. c. The legislator should introduce the rule that cases of persons in pre-trial detention should take precedence over other cases on a judge's docket. d. The legislator should introduce a provision on the defendant's obligatory presence at all pre-trial detention hearings. e. The legislator should introduce obligatory legal representation in cases where a prosecutor requests pre-trial detention or alternatives to detention. f. The amounts awarded as compensation in cases of unlawful pre-trial detention should be increased. g. The legislator should consider introducing new preventive measures (home detention and electronic monitoring) into the Code of Criminal Procedure. h. The Institute of Justice could undertake further research on non-custodial preventive measures, including their perception among the representatives of the justice system. i. The Ministry of Justice, the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution and the Prosecutor General should conduct more training on pre-trial detention standards. j. The authorities should ensure effective implementation of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to access to case files and guidance on pre-trial decision-making. k. The authorities should also ensure proper implementation of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Details: Warsaw: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, 2015. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HFHR_PTD_2015_EN.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Poland URL: http://www.hfhr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/HFHR_PTD_2015_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 144772 Keywords: Criminal DefendantsCriminal ProcedurePretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: White, Elise Title: Navigating the Bail Payment System in New York City: Findings and Recommendations Summary: The use of money bail places a significant burden on indigent defendants and their families. When defendants cannot afford bail, research indicates that pretrial detention leads to a range of potentially deleterious outcomes, including an increased likelihood of a criminal conviction (and resulting collateral consequences); jail or prison sentences; and recidivism following release. Even for those who can afford bail, the often confusing and perplexing process of how to pay it adds another level of inconvenience for family members and friends-not to mention the prospect of delays and an increase in the time that defendants spend in pretrial detention. In New York City, bail can be paid at the courthouse following arraignment; at any subsequent court appearance, during visits with attorneys at court; at the Rikers Island jail complex; or at detention centers in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan. Each of these facilities has its own policies and procedures that are often challenging to navigate, especially during a chaotic and difficult time for defendants' families and friends. In 2014, of the 48,816 disposed criminal cases in New York City in which bail of more than $1.00 was set at arraignment, in only 13.9% (6,798) were family or friends able to successfully navigate the bail payment system at the courts immediately following arraignment. In an additional 12.5% of cases (6,082), family or friends were able to pay bail sometime between the defendant's post-arraignment detention and their second court appearance. In other words, of the 12,880 cases involving family or friends who were capable of posting bail early in case processing (by the second court appearance), close to half (47.3%) of those defendants' family and friends were unable to post bail immediately after arraignment, prior to the defendants' removal from the courthouse. Ultimately, prior to eventual case disposition, bail was posted in 33,847 cases disposed in 2014, demonstrating that a large volume of individuals experiences the bail payment system each year. With funding from the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ), researchers at the Center for Court Innovation examined the current bail payment process both within the courts and at Department of Correction facilities, which include the Rikers Island jail complex and other borough-based detention centers. This report provides the findings, including a set of bail payment system maps and a set of recommendations that might lead to better outcomes. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bail%20Payment%20in%20NYC.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Bail%20Payment%20in%20NYC.pdf Shelf Number: 146096 Keywords: BailCriminal DefendantsPretrial Detention |
Author: Gibbs, Penelope Title: Defendants on video - conveyor belt justice or a revolution in access? Summary: Embracing technology is the progressive thing to do. We all know that - it has enriched our lives immeasurably. Sometimes, however, it is really important to pause for thought, and ask whether a seemingly obvious opportunity for a technological solution is actually one that is worth grasping. That is the message from this timely report. It offers a totally convincing argument that the use of video and similar technologies for virtual court hearings may carry risks and costs that outweigh the likely benefits. Court hearings are complex events. It requires a great deal of coordination and cost to assemble all the participants. Surely there are benefits to be had by allowing some - or all - of them to take part in hearings virtually? Certainly there are potential savings, but there are also some obvious, and some less than obvious, costs. The obvious ones are financial. Whilst it is easy and cheap to take part in a short Skype meeting, the virtual reality that is afforded to participants is far from real. It is very much more expensive to provide equipment that meets realistic criteria for court business. There are issues of visual and acoustic clarity. Virtual participants need to see and hear what is going on, and need to be seen and heard just as clearly. Systems need to be 100% reliable and available - which can prove expensive. These practical considerations may be surmountable, of course. 'Teething problems' can be solved, and costs of technology will fall over time - but these arguments do not remove the need for careful and thorough calculation of cost-effectiveness. The non-financial costs of virtual hearings are potentially more troubling. In the first place, many defendants are vulnerable participants, and appearances in court are arguably very stressful 'vulnerable moments' for the majority, sometimes having life-changing consequences. It is overoptimistic to expect them to participate as fully in a virtual hearing as they can in open court, and to ensure that they are properly given voice. More generally, virtual technology inevitably degrades the quality of human interaction. Nuances may be undetected, misunderstandings may go unnoticed more easily. Empathy may be lost. Defence counsel may find it harder to support their clients effectively, and there are some indications that the technology may actually affect court outcomes. In other words, there is no guarantee at present that virtual hearings will not damage the quality of justice. Finally there are more diffuse - but equally important - concerns about the impact of this technology on the legitimacy of the criminal courts. We know that courts draw their legitimacy from many sources. Treating people fairly, giving them respect, listening to their side of the story, explaining the processes carefully, are all important preconditions. But there is also an element of theatre to court business. One might question whether the full pomp and ritual of wigs and gowns are essential to the authority of the court, but it would be naive to ignore the fact that a hearing is an occasion, not simply a transaction. And it seems very likely that the quality of the occasion is thinned by the technologies of virtual reality. Some will be tempted to dismiss this report as sentimental Neo-Luddism. That would be wrong, as its arguments are balanced and thoughtful, and deserve close consideration. For most citizens, court appearances constitute rare and important moments of interaction with the power of the state. It could prove a costly mistake to penny-pinch when orchestrating these moments. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2017. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2017 at: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TJ_Disconnected.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TJ_Disconnected.pdf Shelf Number: 148768 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal DefendantsDefendantsVideo HearingsVideo Technology |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Dark Side: Secret Origins of Evidence in US Criminal Cases Summary: Evidence suggests US authorities deliberately conceal the facts about how they found information in a criminal case and may be doing so regularly, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Withholding these facts to cover up investigative practices, including potentially illegal ones, harms defendants' rights and impedes justice for human rights violations. Details: New York: HRW, 2018. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 18, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/us0118.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/us0118.pdf Shelf Number: 148863 Keywords: Criminal Courts Criminal DefendantsCriminal Investigations Evidence Human Rights Abuses |
Author: Hunt, Heather Title: Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina Summary: In trial courts across North Carolina, poor criminal defendants are regularly and systematically billed for an array of fines and fees they can't afford. Fees are imposed at almost every step in the criminal justice process, starting before conviction and extending for months or years after sentencing. As we detail in our report, Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina, defendants unable to pay these accumulating court costs risk triggering a cascade of draconian penalties: additional fees, revoked driver's licenses and jail time, often for offenses too minor to warrant incarceration in the first place. The result can be surreal and cruel. Defendants unable to pay their fees are sanctioned in ways that make it even harder for them to escape their criminal justice debt. For them, fines and fees constitute an ongoing poverty trap. One Orange County defendant who had previously been jailed for failure to pay court fees explained how she lives in fear of being incarcerated again. If that happens, her husband may have to quit his job to take care of their kids. Then, she frets, they will likely lose their home. "The whole thing leaves my family feeling hopeless," she said, "like we'll never get back on our feet." It feels like a cycle. "We'll never be able to pay and will always be burdened with these costs." It is "almost like a set-up, they know I won't be able to pay." This report is the first in a series of six to be issued by the North Carolina Poverty Research Fund exploring the criminal justice practices that work to criminalize poverty in our state. Through legal analysis, defendants' stories, court observations, and interviews with advocates, public defenders and judges, we show how criminal court fines and fees work in North Carolina to burden poor defendants, and their families and communities. We examine how fees raise troubling questions of constitutionality, cast doubt on the fairness of our courts and infringe on judicial independence. We scrutinize claims about the necessity and cost efficiency of fines and fees and look at the factors that drove their rise in the state. We conclude with simple, straightforward recommendations that can be easily adopted by the courts. Details: Chapel Hill: North Carolina Poverty Research Fund, 2017. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2018 at: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Court-Fines-and-Fees-Criminalizing-Poverty-in-NC.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Court-Fines-and-Fees-Criminalizing-Poverty-in-NC.pdf Shelf Number: 149171 Keywords: Criminal CourtsCriminal DefendantsFines and FeesPoverty |
Author: Gowdy, E. Ann Title: Impact of Monetary Sanctions on Impoverished Criminal Defendants, Their Family, and the Community Summary: Impoverished criminal defendants can experience issues of a societal nature, which can impede their ability to meet basic living needs. They face challenges in their daily lives due to poverty, employment, housing, racial discrimination, and the stigma of being labeled a criminal. Using a real-life point of view of impoverished criminal offenders, the impact of monetary sentencing laws, statutes, and policy can be better understood. The purpose of this qualitative research study was to explain the impact of courtimposed monetary sanctions on indigent defendants, their family, and the community of Athens/Clarke County (ACC). Additionally, this research provides a description of the current practices and patterns of monetary sanctions before, during, and after the economic recession of 2008 for the Western Judicial Circuit (WJC) Superior Court. The two research questions this study sought to answer were: (a) Were there different practices and patterns of monetary sanctions before, during, and after the economic recession, which occurred from December 1, 2007, through June 30, 2009, in the WJC? and (b) What is the impact of fines, fees, and additional expenses on impoverished criminal defendants, their family, and the community? The multiple case study design used court records and data collected during 33 face-to-face interviews. The findings indicated that the practices of imposed monetary sanctions before, during, and after the economic recession of 2008 were essentially the same for probation fees and bond amounts. Small differences existed in the number of defendants who received monetary sanctions and in the amounts. For the entire court records sample of 300 cases, 73% of defendants were given a monthly probation supervision fee as well as court fees. Further, 34% of the defendants were imposed a fine, while only 17% of defendants were ordered restitution. The findings were used to draw three conclusions: (a) even small monetary sanctions result in undue hardship; (b) impoverished defendants rely on family and friends to pay court-ordered monetary sanctions, along with additional fees and expenses from incarceration and probation; and (c) there is confusion surrounding defendants understanding of monetary sanctions. Implications for social work and recommendations for future research were presented. Details: Athens, GA: University of Georgia, 2011. 221p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/gowdy_elizabeth_a_201112_phd.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/gowdy_elizabeth_a_201112_phd.pdf Shelf Number: 149891 Keywords: Criminal DefendantsFines and Fees Indigent Defendants Monetary Sanctions Poverty Restitution |
Author: Grant, Glenn A. Title: 2018 Report to the Governor and the Legislature Summary: Overview -- Created through the cooperation and commitment of all three branches of state government, Criminal Justice Reform (CJR) embodies principles of fairness in our American justice system that entitle all defendants to a presumption of innocence and a speedy trial. The new system in place balances an individual's right to liberty with the State's responsibility of assuring community safety. As this 2018 Annual Report details, CJR is working as intended. New Jersey has moved away from a system that relied heavily on monetary bail. Two years into its existence, CJR has begun to remove many of the inequities created by the prior approach to pretrial release. At the same time, court appearance rates for CJR defendants remain high while the rate of alleged new criminal activity for CJR defendants remains low. CJR defendants are no more likely to be charged with a new crime or fail to appear in court than defendants released on bail under the old system. Under the risk-based system of CJR, monetary bail is rarely used. Lower-risk individuals no longer spend weeks and months in jail because they lack the financial resources to post relatively small amounts of bail. More than 70 percent of CJR defendants are released on a summons pending the disposition of their cases -- without first being sent to jail. And a majority of defendants arrested on complaint-warrants are released on conditions that Pretrial Services officers monitor. On the other end of the spectrum, higher-risk individuals who pose a danger to the community or a substantial risk of flight are no longer able to secure their release simply because they have access to funds. New Jersey's jail population looks very different today than it did when the idea of reforming the state's criminal justice system began to take hold in 2013. On any given day, there are thousands fewer defendants in jail, with only the highest-risk defendants and those charged with the most serious offenses detained. In all, CJR has reduced the unnecessary detention of low-risk defendants, assured community safety, upheld constitutional principles, and preserved the integrity of the criminal justice process. Details: Trenton: New Jersey Judiciary, 2019. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2019 at: https://njcourts.gov/courts/assets/criminal/2018cjrannual.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://njcourts.gov/courts/assets/criminal/2018cjrannual.pdf Shelf Number: 155496 Keywords: Court System Criminal DefendantsCriminal Justice Reform |