Criminal Trial: Procedures, Evidence, and Principles
LESSON 15: THE TRIAL
1. Functions: Time of Trial
Written claims in determining qualification to judge the facts, practice test for demonstration or refutation of the final precision – Celebration and advertising pretensions.
2. Constitutional Principle, Statutory Exceptions (120 EC)
Principle of publicity, punishment invalidity (680). Reasons: political control of governance, assurance of the accused. Exceptions: Reasons of morality or public order, or respect for the person offended by the crime or their families (680), protection of the rights and freedoms (LOPJ 232). Usually when it comes to property crimes affecting intimate matters (sex crimes) or persons in need of protection (children, disabled). Restriction of advertising by car properly, remember to provide a foundation.
The trial develops under the principles of orality and concentration. After opening, the trial will continue for all the consecutive sessions necessary until its conclusion (sections 744 and 788.1), provided that in the short suspension that can be agreed to last more than thirty days.
3. Trial Court Judge or President (683 to 687)
Sort development and avoid disruptions, able to impose fines or expel the accused if he persists in inappropriate behavior (“judgments of rupture”).
4. CRIMINAL TRIAL
Concept: “Activity Verification facts relating to the facts object – Activity developed prosecution.”
Parte: Demands of the principles of presumption of innocence and adversarial, to preserve the impartiality of the decision-maker.
728: No other evidence than those being proposed by the parties (in skills or in previous issues). Exceptions 729:
- Care: Additional evidence is provided and subject to discretionary judicial adoption (already discussed in item 11.7).
- No proposals that the court considers necessary for the determination of facts awarded. Its diction has wide harmonized with the exception condition and preserve the position of neutrality that derives from the adversarial principle: It is considered that concerns about test contrast test and practiced (STS 14/9/1994) or directed to correct procedural irregularities (Example: call to a second expert in ordinary proceedings).
- Proposed by parties to the act on the veracity of testimony. Contrast is proof or disproof. There should be no, because there is no reason to exclude the proposed standard of proof in the written qualifying or preliminary questions when the testimony given at trial and reiterated the contents outlined in the statement.
2. Sources and Evidence
Test sources are strange and alien elements into the process which exist independently of the same and consist of objects or people who can provide expertise to establish the facts alleged by one party. Their location is the proper task of instruction.
The evidence are procedural instruments through which the sources entering the trial process and only exist within a process. Embodiment according to the procedural rules for the transfer of data it can carry out the test source.
Scope and Burden of Proof
To be tested are the facts that the litigants have presented their letters of qualification. However, it must be qualified that the defense has no such debate narrowed the field, since the input capability of exculpatory or sign attenuating not be limited by the notice of defense, usually nothing is said to that respect.
Burden: Condemns charge requires proof of valid, legal and practiced with respect for due process, and capable of forming a court conviction on the offense charged, so if it does not meet the claims must be rejected damning of the allegations. Governing principle acquisition probation (STS 24/9/2008), pursuant to which the provision of a means test by either party to the other advantage, being indifferent to what their origin.
Essential Principles of Evidentiary Activity
A) The Principle of Contradiction: It implies that any form of evidence, claim or allegation made by one party may be subject to any opposition from other parties, taking part in their execution or may offer further evidence of the contrary. Thus in practice the evidence at the trial the parties will intervene in the course of their performance: interrogating witnesses or perpetrators of documents, requiring that recordings are heard in court to oppose arguments in its value.
B) The Principle of Immediacy: It is the direct and personal contact with the trial judge through its presence in the act of the trial which allows you to appreciate and get a conviction. Only the sentencing judge or magistrate who has actually seen proof in the trial (art. 741). It is an essential guarantee. ECHR and TC (STC 167/02): There can be no conviction for a judge who has not seen the development of evidence relied upon the same, so it does not fit on appeal convict who has been acquitted when they alter the facts based on evidence produced at the trial to demand that such immediacy and has not seen the appellate court.
C) The Principles of Concentration and Orality: The principles of concentration and orality (120.2 CE): unit of measure with trial to be held on orality. No However, there are performances documentary, to be read (730): publicity fosters “the contents of the document is made public in the Board” – and immediacy, yet it is inevitable to circumvent this when the contradiction is not affected in cases where documentary evidence is not disputed by the parties.
Process Relative Decline Guarantees: The documentary becomes expert (788.2), and the documentary is not externalized in court. Practicality can override the formalism of reading when there is no risk of helplessness.
Of Evidence
A) Proposal and Admission of Evidence
After making skills at the intermediate stage before the national instructor (short) or the jurisdiction to prosecute (regular), the trial court decides by order of the admission of evidence (articles 659 for ordinary lecro 785.1) and calls the trial – sorting is carried out by the Secretary – necessary subpoenas. The challenge is inadmissible as a ground of attack on the sentence that had fallen, calling on appeal (to the Supreme Court, against judgments of Hearings in short or regular process) nullity for violation of the right to test that is part of the right to effective judicial protection, while the appeal (which is given in short before the High Court, against judgments of Criminal Justice) has to be sought relief, always more important, through their practice in the second instance (790.3).
C) Practice Test
It begins with the interrogation of the accused, although the law provides as a simple tool for the recognition of facts. Later witnesses, starting with those who had offered the public prosecutor, continuing with the test proposed by the other defendants and, finally, with the accused.
Finally, the judge may alter the order, on request or automatically, if it deems appropriate for the “greater clarification of the facts or the discovery of safer truth” (art. 701), or many times for purely practical reasons.
7. Free Evaluation of Evidence
Standard of proof, so that, as the Law says, “the Court, according to their conscience appreciating the evidence at trial, the reasons adduced by the prosecution and defense, as expressed by the same processes, Sentencing (art. 741.1)”.
From impartiality and independence should apply the rules of logic and reason in the judicial value, expressing reasoned that the criteria have been followed to such criticism of the evidence. It subjectivism away, the mere intuition or simple moral conviction, the result must be in accordance with the maxims of logic and common experience. The result must be capable of exposure it is argued guarantee the correctness of the decision itself (become visible and logical bases for internal consistency) for the defendant (you know the reasons for the decision and if you can challenge by way of appeal), and for the legal and political system itself, for it can control the exercise of power, subjecting them to criticism or corrections taken (disciplinary, criminal) in the event of arbitrariness or bending of the Law.
The need for motivation in the assessment of evidence is particularly relevant when it comes to circumstantial evidence.
The evidence is necessary:
a) That are fully accredited.
b) They should be plural, or only exceptionally but proving a singular power.
c) Who are concomitant to the fact that it comes to testing.
d) Which are interrelated if more than one, so that they are mutually reinforcing.
The induction or inference it must be reasonable, i.e. not only not arbitrary, absurd or unfounded, it fully meets the rules of logic and experience, so that the flow accredited basic facts, such as natural conclusion, the data pointed to certify, there should be a link between direct and under the rules of human criteria (SSTS 1051/95 of 18 October, 1/96, January 19, 507/96 of 13 July and 2486/2001 of 21 December).
Illegally Obtained Evidence
A) The Forbidden Test
Art. LOPJ 11.1 provides that “no effect evidence obtained directly or indirectly, violating the fundamental rights and freedoms.” Effectiveness reflects or indirectly (“fruit of the poisonous tree”): Data obtained through testing are the basis of zero result other incriminating evidence that strict application of this principle would also be ineffective.
Accepted that although tests in causal terms are derived from the test invalid, would have been discovered in any case without it (“inevitable discovery”, i.e. selling activity being investigated for illegal wiretapping surveillance but also by independent contributors incriminating data, so subsequent registration based on both data types is not necessarily affected by illegality of those), other resolutions have into account the good faith or belief in the correctness of policing (STC 22/2003: the case of consent for entry into housing provided by the complainant cohabiting spouse against the other), which exclude such evidence would be sufficient to protect the fundamental right violated: it is more uncertain and dangerous approach.
B) Illegal Evidence
Infringement Procedure Law, without affecting the essence of a fundamental right. Not reflect the effect of art. 1.11 LOPJ and must be assessed in case the significance of the contravention, the void stemming from the effective generation of helplessness (art. 238.3 LOPJ): The formal has to translate into material breach of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. Example: Defects or register tape custody without the presence Secretary, which include that by other means (respectively, the existence of trial transcripts or statements of police officers involved in registration) remedying defects and has evidence with due guarantees.
Governs the principle of conservation of validity of the procedural measures Art. 243.1 LOPJ: The nullity of an act not involve successive, independent of one or those whose content had remained unchanged even without having committed the offense that led to the annulment.
9. The Presumption of Innocence and the Principle “In Dubio Pro Reo”
A) The Presumption of Innocence and trial Rule procedural.
Right fundamental rule of treatment (24.2 EC) recognized in all international instruments on human rights (Article 6.2 ECHR and Art. 14.2 ICCPR). It requires a minimum charge evidential. Is violated in the absence thereof or failure patent and indisputable objective of the practice of establishing guilt, particularly when indirect evidence is concerned.
Obtained with all guarantees. At trial, under the validity of the principles of equality, contradiction and publicity, without prejudice to fit trial investigation proceedings as evidence of early or pre-constituted or contrast, but with respect to guarantees provided by law at the time of collection, its conservation and on the input.
B) The Principle “In Dubio Pro Reo”
“In dubio pro reo” belongs to the time of the assessment of evidence. That is, there has been evidence of guilt, but it does not follow conclusively the guilt of the accused, remaining a distinct significance reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence concerns a constitutional right (art. 24.2 CE) and therefore it can be argued in the ordinary and extraordinary remedies (appeal and cassation) and under, the “pro reo in dubio” refers to the valuation of the test, enforceable on appeal but can not establish an amparo and can only to a limited extent in the appeal.