I was reading this article and it got me thinking…
How exactly do you try someone in absentia anyway? Is there no defense or a state-supplied defense offered? Is a conviction “in abstenia” just as binding as a regular old conviction or is there another “real” trial when the person is later caught or returns to the country to defend themselves. How can a trial like this be fair if the defendent doesn’t have a chance to aid the defense or defend themself. It seems a conviction “in absentia” is meaningless since they can’t impose any real punishment. What is really happenning here… is this just a political trial with no real consequences?
And was does the legal term “in camera” mean?
C’mon all you legal eagles out there… help me out!
In camera means “in chambers” (the judge’s chambers, that would be). Trials in absentia are normally held when there has been adequate notice to the defendant, and the defendant has declined to appear. Exactly what standard is required, I couldn’t say, but I’m guessing that the standards are different in the U.S. and Russia.
In most states in the U.S., defendants, if they are given properly admonished, may be held to trial in absentia, meaning they can be tried without being present. They can also be sentenced in absentia also. The results are exactly the same as if they were there, it’s a “real” conviction and a “real” sentence.
It happens a lot in misdemeanor court, where if you fail to appear for your trial on you petty shoplifting charge, you can be found guilty. It also happens on quite serious charges also, but in those cases, the defendant usually has an attorney to represent them, even though they aren’t present. The prosecutor, defense counsel, judge, and jury all do their business as if the defendant was there. The one case I did with this, we tried a guy in absentia, sentenced him to prison, and there is currently a mittimus warrant out for his arrest. If he gets arrested, it’s straight to prison to serve his sentence. Of course, he fled back to Mexico, but that’s a whole another story.
In Camera can happen when the judge wants to hear argument on an issue, but wants to do it outside the presence of the jury, so you go to his chambers. Oftentimes, it also refers to when a judge will look at something to determine if anybody else can look at it. For example, if the defendant wanted to get his victims psychological records (which by and large are confidential), the judge will review those records in camera to determine if the defendant is entitled to them.