Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In 1942, the dictatorial regime of occupied France held a show trial that didn't work. In a society from which democratic checks and balances had been eliminated, under a regime that made its own laws to try its opponents, the government's signature legal initiative - a court packed with sympathetic magistrates and soldiers whose investigation of the defunct republic's leaders was supposed to demonstrate the superiority of the new regime - somehow not only failed to result in a conviction, but, in spite of the fact that only government-selected journalists were allowed to attend, turned into a podium for the regime's most bitter opponents. The public relations disaster was so great that the government was ultimately forced to cancel the trial. This catastrophic would-be show trial was not forced upon the regime by Germans unfamiliar with the state of domestic opinion; rather, it was a home-grown initiative whose results disgusted not only the French, but also the occupiers. This book offers a new explanation for the failure of the Riom Trial: that it was the result of ideas about the law that were deeply imbedded in the culture of the regime's supporters. They genuinely believed that their opponents had been playing politics with the nation's interests, whereas their own concerns were apolitical. The ultimate lesson of the Riom Trial is that the abnegation of politics can produce results almost as bad as a deliberate commitment to stamping out the beliefs of others. Today, politicians on both sides of the political spectrum denounce excessive polarization as the cause of political gridlock; but this may simply be what real democracy looks like when it seeks to express the wishes of a divided people.

Riom Trial

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Why does Scotland have the evidence laws it does? This is the first textbook to set the Scots law of evidence against a modern backdrop of legal thought and empirical research. It examines the non-legal dimensions of evidence and proof through the lens of legal philosophy, procedure, sociology, science and psychology to analyse the contexts that affect the handling of facts and the process of proof in Scotland. Drawing extensively on socio-legal research, the book provides an accurate picture of how fact-finding works in Scotland – giving students the foundation for a complete, critical and contextual understanding of Scots evidence law.Key FeaturesDetailed, discursive and clearly written: designed for use on LLB evidence law courses in Scotland and by postgraduate students and researchers in the socio-legal contexts of the legal processExamines the philosophical, procedural, sociological, scientific and psychological factors that influence the Scots law of evidenceShows how these factors affect the purported aims of legal fact-finding: to ascertain truth and ensure justice through dealing rationally with evidence and proof

Evidence (Law) --- Extrinsic evidence --- Parol evidence --- Trial evidence --- Actions and defenses --- Judicial process --- Trial practice --- Estoppel

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Every day decisions made by prosecutors, before trial takes place, critically affect the rights of citizens; yet these decisions remain a grey area in the administration of criminal justice. In fact, there are considerable and important differences between what the prosecutor does and what the legal literature and judicial decisions say he should do. Very little is known about the powers wielded by prosecutors and the factors which influence their exercise of discretion. This inquiry focuses on the decision-making role of the prosecutor in pre-trial determinations. Professor Grosman describes and analyses the prosecutor's informal relations with the police and defence lawyers, and the significance these relationships have for the accused and for the fair administration of justice. Other areas examined include the decision to begin prosecution, the negotiated guilty plea, and the prosecutor's administrative bias. The study concludes with recommendations for judicial and legislative reform. Professor Grosman has added a preface to this edition outlining the changes that have occurred in recent years. A lucid and revealing description of the prosecutor's attitudes to criminal prosecution and its operation, this study contributes important insights valuable to lawyers and all those concerned with the administration of justice, and will be of interest to everyone concerned with social problems.

Prosecution --- Pre-trial procedure. --- Criminal procedure. --- Decision making. --- Canada.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Judges were never bound by law to convict a defendant unless they considered him guilty. Yet, they could be prohibited by law from convicting a person they consider guilty due to the absence of legally prescribed or the presence of legally prohibited evidence. Evaluation of Evidence addresses the question: should the law restrict the freedom of judges in assessing the probative value of evidence in the criminal process? Tracing the treatment of evidence from pre-modern to modern times, Mirjan Damaška argues that there has always been some understanding about rules regarding the use and treatment of evidence, and these rules should not be looked askance as a departure from ideal arrangements. In a time when science and technology have the ability to contribute to factual inquiry, there needs to be acceptance of rules that expand or corroborate evidence produced by our native sensory apparatus.

Evidence (Law) --- LAW / Evidence. --- Extrinsic evidence --- Parol evidence --- Trial evidence --- Actions and defenses --- Judicial process --- Trial practice --- Estoppel

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

La 4ème de couverture indique : "Transaction, médiation, conciliation, divorce sans juge, tentative de règlement amiable, composition pénale, alternatives aux poursuites, convention de procédure participative, convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, etc., on ne compte plus les procédés déjudiciarisés en matière civile comme en matière pénale, procédés que le législateur vient régulièrement étendre ou simplifier avec pour objectif de "juger moins" pour "juger mieux". Si les modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges existent depuis longtemps, l'on ne peut que constater cet engouement pour la déjudiciarisation et le mouvement ne semble pas être en voie de prendre fin comme en attestent de nombreuses dispositions de la loi du 23 mars 2019 de programmation 2018-2022 et de réforme pour la justice. Prolongement d'une recherche réalisée grâce à la mission GIP Droit et justice sous la direction des professeurs Sylvie Cimamonti et Jean-Baptiste Perrier, à jour de cette dernière réforme, les présent ouvrage se propose de revenir sur les enjeux de la déjudiciarisation, dans les différentes matières étudiées, et d'abord sur la notion de déjudiciarisation. Cet ouvrage se propose ensuite d'en préciser l'intérêt, lequel ne doit pas être que budgétaire ; la déjudiciarisation doit s'inscrire dans une démarche qualitative et non seulement quantitative, afin de régler durablement le différend entre les parties. Ce postulat déterminé, il convient de réfléchir au domaine et aux méthodes de la déjudiciarisation; mais aussi de rechercher l'amélioration des droits des parties et des tiers. Les dernières réflexions portent sur le renforcement de l'efficacité des modes déjudiciarisés, sans pour autant remettre en cause l'intérêt recherché en termes d'apaisement et de simplicité. Sur ces différents thèmes, cet ouvrage veut mettre en évidence à la fois la diversité des procédés déjudiciarisés introduits par le législateur et les différentes pratiques de la déjudiciarisation, lesquelles interpellent quant à la place et au rôle du juge. Si ce dernier voit son office évoluer, il doit oeuvrer avec les médiateurs, conciliateurs, avocats et notaires, afin de répondre aux enjeux de la déjudiciarisation pour les différentes professions concernées et, avant tout, pour les justiciables."

Procédure (droit) --- Médiation pénale --- Procedure (Law) --- Pre-trial intervention --- Mediation --- Procédure (Droit) --- Déjudiciarisation --- Médiation --- Règlement de conflits --- France