If a defendant is no longer subject to perjury charges, can his lawyer still be be charged with suborning perjury if he tells his client which lies are the ones most likely to lead to acquittal and studiously rehearses with his client until the lies can be told convincingly?
For the love of god, why? What on earth would this accomplish?
It’s so jurors won’t get bored, apparently.
The only thing I’d like changed is the barring of publicly naming of both the accused and the victim. So, if someone is found innocent, then there’s no stigma of “he/she got away with it”.
Only if the accused is found guilty should they be named.
Maybe I’m idealistic but I think the primary purpose of a trial should be to determine what the facts are. Questioning the person who presumedly was at the heart of the matter is a useful tool for that purpose.
Treat him the same way you’d treat any other witness who refused to answer questions - which would be charging him with contempt of court.
How long can you hold someone on contempt of court charges? If he’s determined to stay mute for three or four months (not a big price if conviction means a few decades), are you going to keep your jury impaneled (or sequestered) that long? Are the prosecutors and courts willing to wait? All it takes is a few dozen defendants to sit mute and a city’s court system can grind to a halt. You’d be giving (indeed guaranteeing) defendants the opportunity to delay the trial indefinitely.
Why do you assume this would become a significant problem? Exisiting court procedure seems to be able to deal with the problem of witnesses refusing to testify without causing a general collapse of the the trial system. So I figure they can keep doing whatever it is that seems to be working already.
In civil law systems, because you literally can’t make someone talk, refusing to testify can be used against you. The jury can infer you might be hiding something by your refusal to answer a question.
In our system, in theory, the jury cannot make that inference.
Okay, so give defendants immunity against anything they testify to. Perfect!
Do you have kids, Bryan? If something gets broken around the house, how do you find out what happened? My guess is you probably ask all of your kids what happened and it’s probably pretty easy for you to figure out which one is making up a story about how they didn’t do it.
I think our court system already has a foundation on which to base a more fair system. I started thinking about this during the Kobe Bryant trial, which highlighted for me how unfair this system was to some people.
Right now, victims or witnesses can be kept secret from the public except those in the court room. I’m thinking mob witnesses, snitches, or, in Bryant’s case, alleged rape victims.
Why not extend that to everyone?
Kobe’s trial was a circus because he was famous. But would he have gotten equal justice had the prosecutors not released his name? I think so. In official documents to the public, it could just be “Unnamed defendent” accused of rape by “unnamed alleged victim”. I’m not asking for a total rewrite of the court system like the OP, but simply extending what is already available, anonymity, to both sides. Though leaks would still happen, especially if Kobe’s disappearing before games and arriving right before it, but it would at least be equal to begin with.
Horrible idea. The OP wants judgment made from an abstract of the evidence rather than the actual evidence.