Plea Trial Hearing

Describe Plea trial hearing? Explain why the defendant might go for plea trial hearing.

A plea trail hearing involves a bargain between a defendant and a prosecutor, whereby a defendant agrees either to plead guilty or not to contest in exchange for a consent made by the prosecutor to drop or charge or more. Other events for a plea trial hearing involves the reduction of a charge to a less serious offense or the recommendation to the judge for a particular sentencing which is acceptable to the defense (Fraser and Miller, 2016). In criminal courts where the crowds are big, the judges and prosecutors may feel the need to keep away from the increased pressure so as to move the cases faster through the system. A plea bargain offers both the prosecution team and the defense have control of the result and agree with a condition that both parties may live with.  Notably, most criminal trials may take weeks, months or even days while the guilty pleas are arranged within a few hours, with the trial outcome being unpredictable but mutual for both parties.

A defendant may go for plea trial at any stage in the criminal justice process in the instance when a defendant asks for a lighter sentence for specific charges if they plead guilty. The defendant employs the plea trial to avoid more serious sentence to save on time and cost, where the prosecutor avoids the loss of time, where both parties can spare the time to go to a court and the burden of the court in the trial on every crime being saved.

What are a few examples of either way offenses

Either way, offenses involving where a criminal offense is heard in the magistrates’ court or the crown court. The magistrates may take upon their sentencing powers to deal with an offense and allow the accused to deal with it summarily in the court (Dhami and Belton, 2015). A highlight of either way offenses includes road traffic offenses such as drink driving, careless driving or unlicensed driving. Other examples of either way offenses include damage of property as well as minor assaults.

Explain what is jury tempering

Jury tampering is a criminal offense that intentionally tries to influence the position of a jury in a civil or criminal proceeding in a grand jury request. Some examples of jury tempering include bribery so as to reach a particular verdict, use of threats and intimidation to manipulate a verdict and having conversations with the jurors on a case past the courtroom (MacLeod, 2016).

Explain Human rights act ‘Right to a fair trial’.

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act of 1998 highlights the protection for a fair trial. An individual has the rights to a fair trial or hearing in the event that one is charged with a criminal offense and one is taken to court, or secondly, where a public authority is making a decision that affects one’s obligations or civil rights. In this perspective, the civil rights of an individual are those highlighted in areas of the UK law such as planning law, family law, property law, employment law and contract law (Vitkauskas and Dikov, 2012). The rights to a fair trail encompass the minimum rights to individuals with criminal offenses and entail prompt informing on the nature and cause of the accusation against them, sufficient time and facility for preparation of one’s defense, the assistance of an interpreter in case one does not understand or speak the language used in court. More to that it involves examination of witnesses against them and the right to defend oneself or through legal assistance.

Explain Why a jury couldn’t be used in some cases?

In the event where one’s trial takes the form of a jury and the one’s peers are part of the jury, there is a constitutional right at the Commonwealth level referred to as sacrosanct within the territorial jurisdiction that relieves the occupancy of the jury in such cases (Berk-Seligson, 2017). In addition, the court provides the jury with all the possible verdicts in the case in written form, thus when a decision is reached, the jury has to choose the proper verdict (MacLeod, 2016). In criminal cases, the verdict that the jury arrives at is unanimous. In case the jury cannot reach a justifiable decision or where the jurors are sequestered, the jury may be allowed to leave the case and other parties take over to make a verdict.

Talk about an adversarial and inquisitorial system

Adversarial and inquisitorial system indicate two different means of trails as used in the common law of England. The adversarial system is based on the fact that two opposing parties act as challengers who contend to convince the judges and the jury that their arguments and facts are more convincing (Gunn and Mevis, 2018). The inquisitorial system is where the initial examination is directed by an investigating magistrate by way of inquiring the truth. The judge holds the balance between the opposing parties without taking part in the disputations.

Bibliography

Berk-Seligson, S., 2017. The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. University of Chicago Press. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Berk-Seligson%2C+S.%2C+2017.+The+bilingual+courtroom%3A+Court+interpreters+in+the+judicial+process.+University+of+Chicago+Press.&btnG=

Dhami, M. and Belton, I., 2015. Using court records for sentencing research: Pitfalls and possibilities. In Exploring sentencing practice in England and Wales (pp. 18-34). Palgrave Macmillan, London.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2014&q=Dhami%2C+Mandeep%2C+and+Ian+Belton.+%22Using+court+records+for+sentencing+research%3A+Pitfalls+and+possibilities.%22+In+Exploring+sentencing+practice+in+England+and+Wales%2C+pp.+18-34.+Palgrave+Macmillan%2C+London%2C+2015.&btnG=

Fraser, T.A. and Miller, L.C., 2016. Plea Considerations with an Unresolved Competence to Stand Trial Motion. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 44(3), pp.382-384. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Fraser%2C+T.A.+and+Miller%2C+L.C.%2C+2016.+Plea+Considerations+with+an+Unresolved+Competence+to+Stand+Trial+Motion.+Journal+of+the+American+Academy+of+Psychiatry+and+the+Law+Online%2C+44%283%29%2C+pp.382-384.+&btnG=

Gunn, J. and Mevis, P., 2018. Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Systems of Trial and Investigation in Criminal Procedure. In Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology in Europe (pp. 3-17). Springer, Cham. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2014&q=Gunn%2C+J.+and+Mevis%2C+P.%2C+2018.+Adversarial+Versus+Inquisitorial+Systems+of+Trial+and+Investigation+in+Criminal+Procedure.+In+Forensic+Psychiatry+and+Psychology+in+Europe+%28pp.+3-17%29.+Springer%2C+Cham.&btnG=

MacLeod, A.J., 2016. Tempering Civil Rights Conflicts: Common Law for the Moral Marketplace. Mich. St. L. Rev., p.643. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2014&q=MacLeod%2C+A.J.%2C+2016.+Tempering+Civil+Rights+Conflicts%3A+Common+Law+for+the+Moral+Marketplace.+Mich.+St.+L.+Rev.%2C+p.643.&btnG=

Smith, O. and Skinner, T., 2017. How rape myths are used and challenged in rape and sexual assault trials. Social & Legal Studies, 26(4), pp.441-466. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2014&q=Smith%2C+O.+and+Skinner%2C+T.%2C+2017.+How+rape+myths+are+used+and+challenged+in+rape+and+sexual+assault+trials.+Social+%26+Legal+Studies%2C+26%284%29%2C+pp.441-466.&btnG=

Vitkauskas, D. and Dikov, G., 2012. Protecting the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Vitkauskas%2C+D.+and+Dikov%2C+G.%2C+2012.+Protecting+the+right+to+a+fair+trial+under+the+European+Convention+on+Human+Rights.+Council+of+Europe.&btnG=