I have a related question, which I hope isn’t a hijack. On issues that come up in the course of a trial, does the judge rule based on their own reasoning, or do they only weigh the arguments made by the attorneys. For example, say the defense wants some piece of evidence excluded, so the lawyer cites Smith vs. Jones. The judge thinks Smith vs. Jones is irrelevant, but the evidence should be excluded based on Laurel vs. Hardy, which the defense lawyer didn’t cite, or based on some other argument the defense lawyer should have made. Can the judge still rule in favor of the defense based on the argument they should have made but didn’t?
I recall a recent high profile case in Canada (Colten Boushie murder) where it was mentioned in the news that the jury acquitted the accused of murder because they were specifically not given the option of lesser charges - manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter - even though the defense was that the gun went off accidentally. As I understand it the option was the prosecutor’s choice. Is this different in the USA? Is a lesser offense always an option in a case? Or only for a judge?
The reasoning has to be somewhere on the record or the appeal court will have nothing to go by. At the very least it has to be in the decision.
Judges can smack some common sense into the attorneys during oral arguments but I think the judge should refrain from inserting their own legal strategy if at all possible, otherwise the other party can claim the judge was acting partial. Nevertheless this is the best time for a judge to introduce his or her own legal argument, as both parties have a chance to consider it.
It’s not fair for the defense to fall from an argument that first appeared on the slip. That’s asking for an appeal and the superior court might not take kindly to the punt.
~Max
Charged at 11 as an adult. Wow!
Don’t know anything about the Stanley charge so not commenting on that case.
However, the general rule in Canada is that the trial judge has a duty to charge on lesser included offences, if there is evidence which potentially supports the charge. The Crown and the defence can ask that a lesser included be included, or argue that it’s not available on the facts of the case, but they can’t decide the issue. It’s the judge’s call.
And, we don’t have an offence of involuntary manslaughter.
Thanks.
What is the Canadian offense for an accidental death - “the gun misfired - hang fire - While I was reaching into the car with my other hand”? AFAIK manslaughter has to have the element of deliberate intent to harm which results in death? (i.e. punch someone too hard or knock them over and they bash their head in on the way down…?)
I recall some prominent lawyer who defended the verdict saying the jury did not believe the defendant had intent to kill, and were not given the option of a lesser charge (deliberately, in hope they would convict on the greater charge). This he blamed on the prosecutor, which is why I wonder whose call it was. As a result, it was either second degree murder or not guilty.
There seems to be a general demand for mandatory sentences, and treating teenagers as adults, and so on. But even after the development of children’s courts, murder has often remained in the grown-up court system. For several reasons: children’s courts often have hard limits on the sentences they can impose, they have no experience in dealing with murder charges, and the rules of evidence are often different.
If you just take the position that trial for murder is a very serious trial, you can make an argument for hearing it in the senior court.
I know. How I pine for the days when an 11-year-old’s shotgun blast to the head of a pregnant mother of two was just chalked up to youthful shenanigans.
Innocent isn’t a verdict. Not (proven) guilty is. If the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proving guilt, not guilty is the proper result. No one has to prove innocence in a court.
As a juror, one is allowed to consider life experiences before the trial to arrive at a verdict. (e.g. if the defendant says he was abducted by aliens, you don’t need a psychiatrist to know he is nuts). A judge has the same latitude.
The leading statement from the Supreme Court on lesser included offences was in a case called R v Head, where the majority stated:
It’s the trial judge’s responsibility to consider all lesser included offences, “whether raised by counsel or not”.
Sorry, don’t know much of anything about criminal litigation, but have considerable experience in administrative law adjudication.
Sure, a judge can rely on his/her understanding of the relevant law, whether or not it was raised by the attorneys. it is not horribly unusual for one or both attorneys to be fuck-ups. In many instances, the judge (especially in tribunals of limited jurisdiction) to be more expert as to the law than either atty. Also, the partisan attys may not raise arguments counter to their position. So let’s say the prosecutor presents a one-sided argument, and the defense attorney is incompetent. There is no impediment to the judge finding for the defense based on what the judge knows to be the law - even tho neither attorney raised it.
As a general rule, judges are not supposed to base their opinions on facts not presented in court. That is generally suggestive of “bias.” If the lawyers present evidence as to a specific fact - say prosecutor says it was raining and defense says it was snowing. The judge ought not say, “I remember, it was sunny.” , if one party comes into the court in a neckbrace using a walker, the judge ought not base his decision on having seen the person walking unaided to their car after the hearing. Or the judge ought not base their opinion on what they understand to generally be the case. Such as, “Most/all used car dealers are dishonest.”
But a judge certainly can certainly base their decision on not believing one witness/party or another.
As others have observed, many verdicts/decisions are based on the party who has the burden of proof not meeting that burden. Such a decision says NOTHING about the other party being “right.”
Hope this helps rather than confusing things.
It does help! Thanks.
Kinda related… What happens if a judge or attorney inadvertently becomes a witness or otherwise stumbles into information related to a case they’re working. Can that be entered as evidence? Do they have to recuse themselves?
For example, say a prosecutor is in a public place one day, and the defendant happens to be there as well. The defendant, not realizing the prosecutor is within earshot, tells someone where he hid the gun, or whatever. What does the prosecutor do? What if it was the judge?
This question was sparked by an occurrence during the Mueller investigation when Mueller and Donald Trump Jr. were both waiting for the same plane. There was a photo of them in the waiting area, and Trump was on his phone. I wondered what would have happened if Trump had made an incriminating statement. I know that was different in that Trump wasn’t on trial, but it made me think that similar things must happen occasionally during trials.
As a general rule, attorneys can’t testify, and witnesses can’t litigate. Attorneys CAN however, certify certain things - such as their interactions w/ their clients or other factual explanations.
Judges ought to - at the very least - disclose any information they have or relations to the parties. I’m not aware of any situations where triers-of-fact are allowed to “testify” as to their personal knowledge. It would not be uncommon, however, for such knowledge to find its way into the judge’s questioning of an attorney. Judge’s are not required to enter the courtroom as innocent babes with blinders as to their life’s experiences and knowledge gained.
Judges generally have discretion as to whether or not they recuse themselve. Not all “information related to a case” would warrant recusal.
Something I learned from the late Judge Wapner on the People’s Court: In California, small claims judges are specifically authorized by law to conduct independent investigations. I just searched for proof and, by golly, it’s true:
A real life case in California USA:
An artist (painter) and a musician were roommates. For her birthday, the artist gave the musician a painted portrait she drew of the musician. They had a fight and the musician moved out. Later, the musician released a CD and used the painting as the cover art without crediting the artist.
The artist sued the musician claiming the musician had violated the artist’s “moral rights” by not crediting her. Judge Judy said there was no such right and dismissed the claim.
Could the judge have said “No, you doofus. She infringed on your copyright and so you are entitled to damages”? Or does the fact that the plaintiff failed to state a copyright claim preclude such a finding?
No, the judge shouldn’t do that, because one issue about copyright is that it can be given away, just like any other property.
Did the artist give the copyright to the musician along with the painting? That’s a potentially difficult issue, and unless the parties raise it, a judge shouldn’t raise it on their own motion.
Unless the copyright is explicitly given, the only gift is the physical work. AFAIK - IANAArtist - it’s pretty standard that buying a painting or any other physical art does not give you reproduction rights to that work - they remain with the artist unless explicitly given.
But perhaps this illustrates the OP’s question. If the artist did not sue over copyright, it appears from this case that the judge - even a TV arbitrator - cannot make up a different case over a different law to sort out the problem. All she can, I assume, do is advise the plaintiff to speak to a lawyer. After all - “you didn’t sue about copyright but I’m going to create a plea about copyright and find for you” does not scream impartiality.
Generally a Judge can only rule on what’s before her. She can’t just make up new claims or charges (except lesser included charges in a criminal case) that nobody has brought or alleged. She can take up different legal arguments not raised by either side for why a claim or charge is sustained or not, but that’s not at all the same as taking up a whole new claim. If there was no copyright claim brought by the plaintiff, she can’t just make one up and award damages for that.
Now, Small Claims in California may be different. In particular, if in this informal setting the Court is involved in helping plaintiffs properly form their complaint, it could well be appropriate to suggest making a copyright claim instead of a ‘moral right’ claim. But that should be done before the evidence part of the trial (after all, the musician needs to know what they’re accused of if they’re going to respond, right?)
Sometimes I just forget how precise with my words I need to be around here. 