Florida, U. Estes v. Subsequently, however, in part because of improvements in technology which caused much less disruption of the trial process and in part because of the lack of empirical data showing that the mere presence of the broadcast media in the courtroom necessarily has an adverse effect on the process, the Court has held that due process does not altogether preclude the televising of state criminal trials.
Chandler v. The decision was unanimous but Justices Stewart and White concurred on the basis that Estes had established a per se constitutional rule which had to be overruled, id. The fairness of a particular rule of procedure may also be the basis for due process claims, but such decisions need to be made based on the totality of the circumstance surrounding such procedures.
The use of visible physical restraints, such as shackles, leg irons or belly chains, in front of a jury, has been held to raise due process concerns. In Deck v. Only in special circumstances, such as where a judge has made particularized findings that security or flight risk requires it, can such restraints be used. Thus, under some circumstances it is a violation of due process and reversible error to fail to instruct the jury that the defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, even though the burden on the defendant is heavy to show that an erroneous instruction or the failure to give a requested instruction tainted his conviction.
Taylor v. Kentucky, U. However, an instruction on the presumption of innocence need not be given in every case, Kentucky v.
Whorton, U. The circumstances emphasized in Taylor included skeletal instructions on burden of proof combined with the prosecutor's remarks in his opening and closing statements inviting the jury to consider the defendant's prior record and his indictment in the present case as indicating guilt. See also Sandstrom v.
Montana, U. And see Cupp v. Naughten, U. Kibbe, U. For other cases applying Sandstrom, see Francis v. Franklin, U. Clark, U. McNeil, U. Similarly, improper arguments by a prosecutor do not necessarily constitute "plain error," and a reviewing court may consider in the context of the entire record of the trial the trial court's failure to redress such error in the absence of contemporaneous objection. United States v. Young, U. Williams, U. The convicted defendant was denied habeas relief, however, because of failure to object at trial.
But cf. See also the right to no punishment without law. There is also no automatic right to an appeal an application to a higher court for the reversal of the decision of a lower court. There are times when the public and press are denied access to a hearing. This can happen in the interests of protecting:. The courts might also decide to exclude the public or press if they think that their presence is not in the interests of justice.
This text is taken directly from the Human Rights Act. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. At the first stage of the independent tribunal process the First Tier Tribunal , DG waived his right to put his case in person at an oral hearing. This decision was based on advice from Jobcentre Plus. Thus, a trial conducted by a biased judge leads to a miscarriage of justice. As per Article 22 1 of the Constitution, it is the fundamental right of every accused to be defended by a legal practitioner.
However, this right can only be exercised only if accused is informed about the accusation against him.
Article 22 1 also renders right to be informed about the grounds of arrest as a fundamental right. The grounds of accusation must be communicated to accused in the language which he or she understands. It is important to convey the grounds of accusation in order to be defended. Section of Cr. C incorporates the right to have a precise and specific accusation. The openness of a trial is associated with fairness. A fair trial requires that trial must be in an open court. The openness of the court as per section 1 of Cr.
C means in which not only parties but also, the general public have access to records of the court. However, the rule laid down under section 1 is followed by an exception. Under section 2 the court is bound to observe the trial relating to rape offences in camera. Cases relating to rape offences require secrecy and thus, proceedings conducted in the camera are not a violation of the right to fair trial. In the case of Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. High Court has inherent jurisdiction to hold trials or part of a trial in camera or to prohibit publication of a part of its proceedings.
If to ensure a fair trial the accused is to be defended by a legal practitioner, it is also important to ensure that he has all the necessary means to engage a lawyer. This right is secured by the Article 39A of the Constitution which provides for equal justice and free legal aid. C also provides for legal aid at the expense of State. Legal assistance to accused that has no means to defend himself is crucial to protect his life and personal liberty.
Legal aid has its root not only in Constitution and Criminal laws but also in human rights. In Khatri v. Speedy trial is an essential feature of a fair trial. Delayed justice leads to denial of justice. A speedy trial is important not only to the victim but also to the accused.
Speedy trial ensures that the accused is free from any unnecessary harassment. The concept of speedy trial flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. In Husainara Khatoon v. In the case of Moti Lal Saraf v. Union of India, [13] the court observed that the concept of a fair trial is an integral part of article 21 of the Constitution. Section 1 of Cr. The general rule is that all proceedings related to the case should take place in the presence of the accused.
The principle behind is that the court is restricted from making any ex-parte decision. However, this is not an absolute rule and court has the power to proceed the case even in the absence of accused.
The court requires the presence of accused if it feels necessary for the administration of justice. Indian judiciary places its reliance upon evidence and in order to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice, it is must that evidence are taken in presence of accused.
C requires that all the evidence and the proceedings should take place in presence of accused. This rule is backed with exceptions as well. The court may take evidence in the absence of the accused and the accused will appear through his counsel.
The court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. In such cases, evidence can be recorded in the presence of pleader.
The presence of pleader is thus, deemed to be a presence of accused. Therefore, actual presence is not necessary, a constructive presence is also enough. According to section 57 of the Code, no person arrested will be detained for more than 24 hours and will be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours.
It is also a fundamental right under Article 22 2 of the Constitution. A detention of a person in excess of 24 hours without the permission of the Magistrate will be termed as illegal detention. Bail simply refers to the release of a person from the custody of police.
When a person is arrested for a bailable offence, he is entitled to be released on bail. As per section 50 2 of the Code, it is the duty of the police officer to inform the arrested person of his right to bail and allow to make arrangements for sureties. This doctrine implies that if a person is prosecuted and convicted or acquitted cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence. C also explicitly lays down the rule that a person once acquitted or convicted will not be tried for the same offence or for any other offence on the same facts.
Article 20 2 of the Constitution and section 1 differs from each despite the fact that their meaning is the same. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao, [15] differentiated between article 20 2 of the Constitution and section 1 of Cr.
0コメント