To give the short version of what it means, in the vernacular, to get off on a technicality–simply you were released for reasons unrelated to your crime and irrespective of what evidence there was for or against you. Certainly those “technicalities” may exist for important reasons–important enough to let someone off the hook without preamble–but you were still not released based on the merit of your case. Society, nor you, will ever have the chance to prove your innocence one way or the other.
What country are you from? Here in America, I am presumed innocent, and it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove me guilty. Until that time, I am innocent, and bear no obligation to prove anything.
Unless you happen to be poor, black, brown, a celebrity, or have your show featured on ‘Nancy Grace’.
I presume you are wearing clothes. I have no proof of this.
See? Wrong again. That’s why we have rules of evidence and other technicalities.
Yes, you could, and no, it’s not hard. I wasn’t supporting the point of view of the employer, I was merely giving an example.
That’s not what happened. Miranda wasn’t involved. She had demanded the police stop recording her interrogation, *then * confessed she had not called 911 but let the man die, then cut up and disposed of the body behind a restaurant in Augusta (none was found). At least according to the police, that’s what she said. Unfortunately, they didn’t take written notes, either. The “confession” admitted in court was what the police *said * she had said, nothing more. Maybe there’s a police exception for hearsay, I don’t know. There was no other evidence, not even that the victim was actually dead. The “technicality” she was rapidly acquitted on was the prosecution’s lack of a case.
Yes, but you might want to, if only because otherwise everybody will assume you were guilty because they saw your face in the medias. So, you might be better off if you weren’t found guilty after a trial than if you were released without trial on the basis of a “technicality”.
In France, isn’t the decision to hold or release an arrestee up to the prosecutor, not the judge? If the “technicality” is the prosecutor’s error, why would he admit it?
Also, in France isn’t it the “Napoleonic” system of justice, where the burden is upon the defendent to prove his innocence?
Oliver North got off on a technicality. He was found guilty of lying to Congress, but he got off because he had been granted immunity before testifying.
I got off on a technicality, once.
I borrowed my dad’s truck. I drove it around for a day or two. Late one night a cop saw me driving it.
A word of explanation here: My dad’s truck was the ugliest piece of junk ever to navigate the highways. It had hammered out creases, and missing windows, and the rear end was six inches higher than the design specification, and the door to the load bed was missing. Beyond all reason, it had a valid (actually legal) inspection sticker, and insurance, and local tax sticker. No rational person would look at it and decide, yeah, that’s a legal vehicle. But, it was a legal vehicle.
So, the cop pulls me over and asks for my license. I give it to him. He retreats to his car, and a long time passes. Another car comes. And a third. Cops are everywhere. I am very worried. What has dad done to me? The cops begin leaving. The original cop comes up and says: “Thank you sir. I am sorry we delayed you so long. I thought your vehicle was not legally inspected, but the paperwork seems in order.”
I drove directly back home, which was less than a quarter mile. I looked over the truck. Yep, the stuff covered by inspection laws was all legally maintained, although nothing else was. Why the furor, though? As I was looking the car over, I see the same cop drive by the end of the street. Then I see another cop at the other end of the street. What the heck is up?
Yeah. Unpaid ticket. Or, actually, a ticket I was given by an automated system that somehow managed to get me convicted without ever notifying me that I owed the money. (Toll Road, my money didn’t make it to the bottom of the bin until after I rolled into the sights of the camera.) But the real kicker, is that my license was suspended for non payment of said ticket, and even that notification never got sent. That was what the cop conference was about. See, the original cop had no real cause to pull me over in the first place. So, he could not arrest me for driving on a suspended license, since he had no probable cause for the stop. So, they all waited around to see me drive away, to try to get me for a rolling stop, or some valid excuse to pull me over again. But I, nefarious criminal that I, am simply drove home and parked.
Since it was such curious behavior by cops, I called up the local cop shop and asked to have my name run for wants and warrants. Yeah, unpaid ticket. License suspended. You better pay it. I did. The suspension was lifted, and without any additional charge, since even they could tell that I was never notified about the ticket in the first place.
So, I actually did drive on a suspended license, but got off on a technicality. The technicality being that in Virginia, cops need a reason to arrest you, and it has to be a legal one. A technicality I happen to like.
Tris
Briefly, because 1) I don’t think it’s really related to the thread topic and 2) It’s not like I’m really aknowledgeable about such issues :
In criminal cases, a french prosecutor has an extremely limited role by comparison with an american prosecutor, besides the decision to prosecute or not at the first place. Most of the decision making is laid at the feet of the “enquiring judge” who has no equivalent in the US system. Basically his job is to objectively lead the enquiry, on behalf of both the prosecution and the defense (“instruire à charge et à decharge”). The prosecutor can recommand a course of action, but doesn’t have much say in the matter. Not much more than the accused person’s lawyer.
This enquiring judge also chose when to close the enquiry, whether or not the defendant should be jailed meanwhile, whether or not he should be sent to trial, etc… The actual decisions are made by other judges (like the “judge of freedoms”) or courts (like the “accusation chamber”), but a frequent critic is that these other judges or courts often rubber stamp the proposals of the enquiring judge, which means that you’re in deep shit, at least until the trial, if he’s convinced you’re guilty (especialy since he’s probably going to try to prove your guilt in this case, which he shouldn’t do).
So, the main risk in France would be that the “enquiring judge”, rather than the prosecutor, would want to cover up a “technicality” (normally, of course, he’s supposed to spot the “mistakes” made for instance by the police rather than to create them, let alone cover them up) Not much of a difference. However these issues, should be examined and/or brought to the “accusation chamber” I mentionned above whose job is precisely, amongst other things, to rule about such matters, and for instance order the release of a detainee illegally arrested.
Sorry, it was longer than I intended…
Nope. this is an old canard that I read time and again on english-speaking boards. Like in any other democratic country, an accused is presumed innocent until found guilty in France. This is a principle enshrined in the 1789 “Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen” which has constitutionnal value.
Besides, it wouldn’t make sense. If it were so, you would just have to pick up random people in the street until you find one who can’t prove he wasn’t busy robbing the bank last tuesday at 5 pm.
clairobscur, merci beaucoup. That’s still a little more *obscur * than clair, but I think I get the idea.
Maybe you’re thinking of the Reign of Terror, when for a while it was actually illegal to offer a defense at all.
Sorry to continue the hijack, but by the way, does someone know how are called these two different kind of procedures (in the french and british/america system) in english?
It’s something along the line of “accusatory procedure” (UK/USA system) and “inquisitory procedure” (Napoleonic system) but I know these aren’t the correct words in english. I read the proper terminology several times, but keep forgetting.
Good story. Thanks for sharing.
Well… I’m going to try to explain it in a simpler way. The “enquirer judge” is…well, in charge of the enquiries. He’s the one who will decide to search a house for instance (and he will also release the warrant), he will hear the witnesses or the accused, call for an expert opinion, etc…However, his job isn’t to prove the case against the accused (contrarily to an american prosecutor) but to objctively assess it, on the basis of the evidences (or lack thereof) he finds during the enquiry. The prosecutor role is merely to point at whatever could be used against the accused, in the same way the accused’s lawyer role is to point at what could be used in his favor. For instance, the prosecutor (or the lawyer) could suggest a DNA expertise, that the enquirer judge can decide to order or not.
The most important decisions, like for instance jailing the accused, dropping the charges or at the contrary sending the accused to trial, originate too in the “enquirer judge” office, but ultimately are taken by another court (mostly the “accusation chamber”, which for instance plays the part of the american “grand jury”).
When he is finished (assuming that the accused is send to trial), he delivers his conclusions and findings, along with the gathered evidences, in written form, and doesn’t take any part in the trial. AFAIK, he can’t even testify during it. On this basis, the prosecutor will try to make his case in court. Actually, the prosecutor isn’t even obligated to make his case. He may as well ask the jury to find the accused not guilty (it very rarely happens, of course, but it’s possible).
Something I thought would add. The enquirer judge isn’t in charge of a case against a particular accused, but in charge of an enquiry about a particular crime, from beginning to end (for instance, it could happen that person X is suspected, charged, then the charges are dropped and person Y is charged with the crime instead. The same judge will still stay in charge).
I think the term you’re looking for might be adversary system. In the common law system, the defense and the prosecution are adversaries and the judge is supposed to be passive, not inquiring beyond anything that the two sides present to him.