陪審裁判における裁判地の変更 : Venue/Vicinage requirementをめぐって

概要

論文の詳細を見る
Unpopular verdict is often attributed to the systematic defect of the jury system. Especially it is typical when the trial is transferred to the new jurisdiction according to a defendant's request. The criticism stems from the perception that the jury system must have an inherent defect as a fair trial system because it presumes that the jury might be so "unfair and partial" as the jury trial must be transferred. The Constitution of the United States guarantees that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury ; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." (Art. III-2-3) and "[I] n all criminal Prosecutions, the Accused shall enjoy the Right to a Speedy and Public Trial, by an Impartial Jury of the State and District wherein the Crime shall have been committed, which District shall have been previously ascertained by Law, "(Amend. Art. VI). The "vicinage" which means the area of the crime taken place and "venue, " the place of the jury trial, are the Constitutional requirement that was a product of historical cause in the period of Colonial and Independence of the United States. Both Colonists and the Framers of the United States Constitution fought against the English authority. Since the colonial practice made loyal judges possible to discretionally change a venue so that the harsher judgment was attained to maintain English supremacy over the colony, the Colonists regarded the right of jury trial and its vicinage and venue requirement as essential to the independence. However, the remarkable development of the mass media, which is supported by the communication technology and conscious expansion of the freedom of expression, and the racial conflict, which is promoted by the Civil Rights movement and Human Rights consciousness, have raised serious problem on the "fair and impartial" jury trial. For instance, highly reported case, such as Rodney King case and O. J. Simpson case, defendants filled a motion to change venue and ultimately they were acquitted. After the verdict of not guilty, the national uproar followed. Thus when the transferred forum is not reflecting features of the community, especially racial characteristics of the original forum, the criticism increased against its verdict on the ground that the transferred forum was racially prejudiced. In this article the author tries to analyze the above mentioned issues by providing chapters as follows : I. Introduction II. Constitutional Guarantee of the State/District and Fair Jury Trial 1. Historical Background of the Vicinage Requirement 2. Statutory Requirement on the Change of Venue III. Case Development of the United States Supreme Court on Influences of the Excessive Mass Media over the Prospective Jurors 1. Case Development from 1950s to 1960s (1) Marshall v. United States, 360 U. S. 310 (1959) (2) Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961). (3) Rideau v. State of Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723 (1963). (4) Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966) 2. Case Development After 1970s (1) Murphy v. Florida, 421 U. S. 794 (1975) (2) Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U. S. 415 (1991). IV. The Turning Point of the Case Development : From Excessive Mass Media to Racial Prejudice over the Prospective Jurors 1. The Batson Case and the Ballew Case 2. The Equivalence Requirement of the Original to Transferred Venue V. Conclusion
関西学院大学の論文

陪審裁判における裁判地の変更 : Venue/Vicinage requirementをめぐって

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク