The Limits of Self-help: A Field Experiment in an Arizona Housing Court

The article analyzes the main requirements for judges and the peculiarities of their activities in the regional courts of Galicia (1850–1918). It is noted that regional (district) courts acted as courts of second instance for the appeals against decisions of district courts as well as courts of first instance in a specified district when considering criminal and civil cases, the value of the subject matter of which was more than 1,000 crowns. Regional courts in Galicia, as courts of first instance, considered: civil cases (family disputes, guardianship cases, cases of restoration of rights, adoption, inheritance according to wills); criminal cases – cases of violation of state laws, anti-government activities, organization of illegal associations, murder, robbery, arson, cases of insulting the honor and dignity of the emperor or his family. Disputes of a mining, commercial and promissory nature, regardless of the price of the subject matter of the dispute, were considered by special senates of only a few regional/district courts in Galicia. In the proceedings of regional courts in Galicia, civil cases related to property and land disputes prevailed, and among criminal cases – the cases of political crimes, theft, forgery of money and documents, as well as infliction of bodily harm. Regional courts in Galicia acted as collegial judicial bodies and considered civil cases with three judges, and criminal cases with four judges. The judge of the regional court could be a person with a legal education who had to pass the relevant professional exams and complete a mandatory internship. At first, three state exams were to be passed: legal-historical, judicial and political. For their reception, a special commission was created in each higher educational institution by order of the Minister of Religions and Education. It had to determine the level of the candidate's legal training, i.e. whether the graduate has legal insight, whether he can conduct legal proceedings independently, or whether he has a good command of legal terminology. The subject of the legal history exam was Roman, church and German law, as well as the history of the Austrian state, judicial – Austrian civil, commercial and promissory law, civil procedure, Austrian criminal law and procedure. During the political exam, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of Austrian administrative law, science and policy of social economy, and financial legislation of the empire. The first exam was taken three times a year – in winter, summer and autumn, the other two – at any time during the year, except for holidays. Exams were held orally and publicly. Graduates were able to choose the language of the exam. The final grade was determined by the voting of the commission members. With a negative result, it was possible to retake the exam within the time limits set by the commission. The next step in the career of a lawyer was a mandatory free one-year judicial practice in the regional (district) court. One-year judicial practice was a mandatory condition for admission to the position of a judge, but its term was changed specifically for judicial candidates. From 1885, the internship period was extended to two years, and from October 1896 – to three years. After completing such practice, graduates of law faculties were usually appointed as auditors in a certain district court. The minimum requirement for admission to this position was the presence of a certificate of successful completion of legal history and judicial state exams. It was possible to get the position of a judge only after passing the qualifying judge exam. It was conducted by a special commission, which was created every year by order of the Minister of Justice at the High Regional Court. It included university law professors and practicing judges, usually from the same tribunal. The exam consisted of written and oral parts and aimed to reveal knowledge of civil and criminal law, process and procedures. The first part lasted two days, during which the candidates had to complete two tasks – to compile excerpts from acts with court decisions in civil and criminal court cases. Two hours were allotted for the oral exam, during which the applicant was examined in all areas of civil and criminal legislation. In addition, he had to know perfectly the system of functioning of the Austrian judiciary. Keywords: court, regional court, judiciary, Galicia, Austrian Empire.

Reopening of civil proceedings is an exclusive procedural measure, which helps to ensure a right to court. Its aim is to remove possibly unlawful court decision, thus delivering justice and avoiding consequences of such decision. Therefore, reopening of civil proceedings seeks to protect not only interests of private parties, but also public interest. However, if we look to Code of Civil procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, we can see a lack of possibility in Lithuania to reopen proceedings, when Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Lithuanian case law does not allow reopening of proceedings in civil cases based on mentioned ground, because otherwise principles of stability of legal relations and certainty of rights and duties of subjects“™ legal relations would be breached. Contrary to civil cases, administrative cases may be reopened based on mentioned grounds. Moreover, administrative courts examine cases regarding damages, incurred due to unlawful actions of public administration bodies, and these cases may also be reopened based on mentioned ground, though they are civil cases. Therefore, administrative courts case law and general competence courts case law differs on the question regarding reopening of proceedings in civil cases, when Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Meanwhile, about half European states“™ laws, which were analyzed in this work, allows to reopen civil proceedings on mentioned grounds, and almost all states allow to reopen proceedings on mentioned ground in criminal cases. Such differentiation between civil and criminal cases is explained by the principle of lex benignor retro agit: if law, which was basis in criminal or administrative case, is declared void, such law has retroactive validity, if person“˜s, who was penalized in such case, situation may be improved. Meanwhile, improving situation of one party in civil case, may worsen other party“˜s situation. However, it must be noted, that in such situation other party“˜s situation does not always worsen. Importance of violations of human rights in civil cases is underlined by European Court of Human Rights. Even though ECHR“˜s view is that reopening of proceedings is limited by principle of legal certainty, in certain cases it may be the most effective way of restoring justice, which was denied by breaching human rights. Therefore, reopening of proceedings, when Constitutional Court declares act applied in a specific case is in conflict with Constitution, is justifiable in cases of violation of human rights. Meanwhile Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania deems that reopening of proceedings on examined ground is defensive measure meant to protect constitutional human rights. Lack of possibility to reopen proceedings on examined grounds would not allow to remove unconstitutional consequences induced by unconstitutional act from Lithuanian legal system, which in turn would create preconditions to violate numerous principles and values, established in Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and therefore a risk to ruin foundations of the State of Lithuania, as the common good of the entire society which is consolidated in the Constitution. Moreover, reopening of proceedings would allow to accomplish person“™s right to court. By not allowing to reopen proceedings on examined grounds persons, who go to court demanding to protect their breached rights before Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania deems law as unconstitutional and persons, who go to court after deeming law as unconstitutional, are treated unequally. Because current Lithuanian case law and laws related to examined problem are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, this problem should be fixed. Therefore, in this work I provide several different ways how to tackle this problem. The most logical one is to apply petition to Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania to examine constitutionality of article 366 of Civil procedure code of the Republic of Lithuania, arguing for the lack of ground to reopen proceedings in civil cases when when Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Other effective way to tackle this problem is preliminary constitutional control. Although, it would not be possible to examine all laws, before they come into force, but it would prevent a significant part of unconstitutional laws from entering Lithuanian legal system and would ensure persons“™ right to court.

Fire in the Hole: Empirical Testing of a Pro-Government/Anti-Plaintiff Bias in the Admissibility of Scientific Experts in Criminal and Civil Cases

Anecdotal evidence claims that in criminal cases, trial judges admit the prosecution's expert witnesses more readily than the defendants', and in civil cases the reverse is true; judges exclude plaintiffs' experts more often than civil defendants' experts. This occurs despite the fact that, with few exceptions, the same rules of admissibility apply to all parties and, in most jurisdictions, across criminal and civil cases. This article empirically tests this differential by reviewing judicial decisions to admit or exclude evidence holding the type of expert testimony constant, fire and arson evidence, across criminal and civil cases in the United States. The study examines the admissibility of fire and arson investigation experts in criminal and civil cases across all legal parties in fifty‐seven federal and state opinions in the United States. The findings offer empirical support of a bias in criminal cases and in civil cases which present expert witnesses at trial, and is less pronounced, but still evident, on appeal. Specifically, the role of the party that offers the evidence has a profound effect on whether arson evidence is admitted, even when factors around the judge's political affiliation, attorney experience, expert qualifications, and rules of evidence are taken into account.

Authentic deeds as perfect evidence (volledig bewijskracht) and binding (bindende bewijskracht), so that authentic deeds can stand alone without the support of other evidence. This study analyzed the differences in the power of authentic authentic deeds in civil and criminal cases and the power to prove authentic deeds in criminal cases still requires other evidence to determine their perfection. The research method used normative legal research while the problem approach is carried out using a legal approach and conceptual approach. The results of the study indicate that the evidentiary law is not an orderly system. The strength or weakness of evidence in evidence depends on the evidentiary parameters used in each court, both civil and criminal. The difference in the parameters in proof is what distinguishes the power of the law of authentic proof of deed in criminal and civil cases. Regarding the value of authentic deed perfection in criminal cases, the authors conclude that, the power of proof of authentic deed is not of perfect value and does not bind judges, so authentic deeds in criminal cases cannot stand alone and require other evidence for judges in making decisions

In civil cases that took place in southern courts from the end of the Civil War to the mid-twentieth century, black men and women frequently chose to bring litigation and then negotiated the white-dominated legal system to shape their cases and assert rights. In some ways, these civil cases were diametrically opposite from the criminal cases of black defendants who did not choose to enter a courtroom and often received unequal justice. However, this article draws on almost 2,000 cases involving black litigants in eight state supreme courts across the South between 1865 to 1950 to argue that in both civil and criminal cases African Americans were at times shaping their cases and fighting for their rights, as well as obtaining decisions that aligned with the interests of white elites. Southern state courts during the era of Jim Crow were thus spaces for negotiating for rights and sites of white domination, in both criminal and civil cases.

Analysis of SIDS-related civil and criminal court cases in Japan

<p align="center">Abstract</p><p>Submitting a judicial review (PK) at the Supreme Court, both criminal and civil cases, one of the material requirements is the discovery of new evidence or fresh fact or new circumstances, called novum. The material reason for the Judicial Review (Peninjauan Kembali) of criminal cases is called "new circumstances", contained in Article 263 Paragraph (2) letter a of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. The form of new evidence or novum in civil cases, referred to as "decisive evidence letters", is stated in Article 67 letter b of Law no. 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court in conjunction to Law No. 5 of 2004 in conjunction to Law No. 3 of 2009 concerning the Second Amendment. Although using different terms about the novum (criminal procedure code and civil procedure code), the actual meaning is not different. The difference is that in criminal cases it is not explicitly stated about the evidence/the form of novum, where the novum was obtained, contained or attached. But new evidence or novum in civil cases is expressly called "with documentary evidence", then the new evidence or novum is documentary evidence. In criminal cases, the form of evidence for a novum is not mentioned, so the form of a new situation or novum in a criminal case can be obtained from letter evidence or witnesses. The important thing is that the contents of the novum are in the form of new conditions that previously, when the case was examined at the first level of court, the new circumstances had not been revealed in the trial of the first level court. For applicants for reconsideration (PK) Novum or new evidence in the form of a letter based on Article 69 letter b of Law no. 14 of 1985, since the discovery of the documents of evidence, the day and date of their discovery must be declared under oath and ratified by the competent authority. However, the law (No. 14 of 1985) does not regulate the Novum or new evidence held by the Respondent for Judicial Review, in the form of a counter memory from the Judicial Review with additional new evidence, whether it must be declared under oath and ratified by an authorized official. This can cause problems because of the difference in the strength of the evidence between novum of the Judicial Review of the Petitioner and the Judicial Review of the Respondent. In order to have a legally balanced strength of evidence, it is better if new evidence or novum from the Respondent from the Judicial Review is also regulated in the procedural law, which is sworn in and ratified by an authorized official.</p><p>Key word: Judicial Review; novum; new evidenc; equality before the law; The power of </p><p> evidence.</p>

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Outcomes and the Legal Rhetoric of Expert Evidence (Doctoral Dissertation)

The study aims to provide a constitutional analysis of judicial review (PK) in civil cases for more than once. The research-based is the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 in which the two judgments provide a different classification between criminal and civil cases. The method used in this research is a normative juridical with a conceptual, legislation, and case approach. The results of the study assert that: first, the opportunity for judicial review (PK) more than once in a criminal case is an effort to uphold justice substantively by the Constitutional Court. Whereas the restriction of judicial review (PK) only once in civil cases is intended to guarantee legal certainty. Secondly, there is rational inconsistency in the arguments of the Constitutional Court which is indicated in Decision No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013. Both criminal and civil cases must seek to establish and maintain substantial justice, especially since there is a due process of law principle that requires that everyone can get the same opportunity before the law.

Using Appellate Decisions to Evaluate the Impact of Judicial Elections

The legal system in the UAE provides the right to file a civil lawsuit against the defendant in criminal court, with the civil claim aiming to compensate the victim for the harm suffered due to the committed crime. Civil compensation may include coverage for financial, physical, and psychological losses incurred by the victim. Typically, the civil claim in criminal court is initiated by submitting a formal request that contains the grounds for the claim and the available evidence supporting it. The plaintiff must be able to prove the damage suffered and link it to the defendant's actions. It is worth noting that the civil claim is distinct from the criminal claim and aims to compensate the plaintiff for material damages. Generally, civil courts have jurisdiction over civil claims, while criminal courts have jurisdiction over criminal claims. However, the Federal Criminal Procedures Law allows the civil claimant to file their civil claim before the criminal court, indicating an exceptional jurisdiction for criminal courts to hear compensation claims. Thus, the injured party may file a civil claim ancillary to the criminal case, seeking compensation, making such a claim subject to the criminal court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the victim in the criminal case may file a civil claim related to the same incident covered by the criminal case to obtain financial compensation for the damages suffered. In this situation, the criminal court has the authority to consider the civil claim and render a decision on it, taking into account the differences in rules and procedures applicable to both criminal and civil cases under UAE law. Based on the above, this study aims to clarify the rights of the civil claimant before the criminal court in connection with the criminal case, by explaining the civil and criminal aspects of this dispute at all stages of the criminal case under UAE legislation. ملخص البحث يوفر النظام القانوني في الإمارات الحق في رفع دعوى مدنية ضد المتهم أمام القضاء الجزائي، حيث يهدف الادعاء المدني إلى تعويض المجني عليه عن الضرر الذي لحق به نتيجة للجريمة المرتكبة، يمكن أن تشمل التعويضات المدنية تغطية الخسائر المالية والجسدية والنفسية التي تكبدها المجني عليه، وعادة ما يتم الادعاء المدني أمام القضاء الجزائي بتقديم طلب رسمي يحتوي على أسباب المطالبة والأدلة المتاحة لدعم هذه المطالبة، ويجب أن يكون المدعي قادراً على إثبات وجود الضرر الذي لحق به وربطه بسلوك الجاني . وجدير بالذكر أن الادعاء المدني يعتبر منفصلاً عن الادعاء الجزائي ويستهدف تعويض المدعي عن الأضرار المادية، فالأصل أن المحاكم المدنية هي المختصة بنظر الدعاوي المدنية، بينما تختص المحاكم الجزائية بنظر الدعاوي الجزائية فقط، إلا أن قانون الإجراءات الجزائية الاتحادي أجاز للمدعي بالحق المدني رفع دعواه المدنية أمام القضاء الجزائي، وهذا مفاده الاختصاص الاستثنائي للمحاكم الجزائية بنظر دعوى التعويض. وعليه قد يرفع المضرور دعوى مدنية تابعة للدعوى الجزائية يطالب فيها بالتعويض فتصبح تلك الدعوى مطروحة أمام المحكمة الجزائية، وبناءً عليه يمكن للمجنى عليه في الدعوى الجزائية أن يتقدم برفع الدعوى المدنية المتعلقة بنفس الواقعة المشمولة بالدعوى الجزائية وذلك للحصول على تعويض مالي عن الأضرار التي لحقت به، وفى هذه الحالة يحق للمحكمة الجزائية النظر في الدعوى المدنية واتخاذ قرار بشأنها مع مراعاة الاختلافات في القواعد والإجراءات المتبعة في الدعوى الجزائية، وكذلك الدعوى المدنية في التشريع الإماراتى استناداً إلى ما تقدم فإن هذه الدراسة تهدف إلى إيضاح حقوق المدعى بالحق المدنى أمام المحكمة الجزائية ارتباطاً بالدعوى الجنائية، وذلك ببيان الجانبين المدنى والجنائى في هذه الخصومة في مراحل الدعوى الجنائية كافة في التشريع الإماراتي .

This study assesses the functioning of yaa’aa yaaboo customary court (the Qaallu court), which is found in the Oromia National Regional State of Ethiopia, in west the Shewa zone in the Ambo district. This court accepts and handles any criminal and civil cases unless cases are pending in the formal courts. The effectiveness of this court in course of handling both civil and criminal cases is rarely treated in different kinds of literatures. Thus, the aim of this article is to fill this gap. To realize this objective, the study employed a qualitative research approach. By showing the overall functioning of this court, this article recommended a legal reform that may include a constitutional amendment to give wider mandates than envisaged under the current constitution to customary justice institutions.

Alice Renteln, The Cultural Defense. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, 404 pp. Legal theorists have long been considering myriad ways in which US legal practice and discourse navigates particularity within supposedly universal and a-cultural legal system. In her sharp and comprehensive book, Cultural Defense, Alice Renteln mobilizes both policy arguments and Liberal legal theory (Minow 1990) in order to challenge contemporary judicial resistance to use of evidence and defenses in criminal and civil cases. Like many other scholars who have interrogated claims to objectivity made by Liberal legalism in US, (Kennedy 1997) Renteln uses her exploration of the to chart how legal processes imagined as most neutral are themselves constituted by particularity of dominant hegemony. In this, Rentlen joins those who critique Liberal legalism by showing how US law enforces dominant norms under guise of legal neutrality (Brown and Halley 2002). Yet at same time Renteln foundationally relies on Liberal legalism to support formal defense in law, arguing that exclusion of non-dominant norms from adjudication work against fundamental principles of Liberal legalism within its own terms. While providing on clear and rigorous analysis of cases involving notorious cultural Renteln shows how culture, and interpretation of culture by anthropologists and mediators, centrally constitutes legal determinations of guilt and innocence in US. As such, Renteln persuasively argues that courts and legislatures must change current rules for admission of evidence in US courts in order to maintain legitimacy, while also offering principles and policy guidelines by which to manage such changes (Butler 1997). Before charting specific course of Rentlen's argument and conclusion, it may first be helpful to explore what exactly is meant by a in contemporary US legal practice. According to Federal Rules of Evidence, in both civil and criminal cases, all evidence may be admitted according to judge's discretion concerning evidence's relevance, unless otherwise specified by statute or federal rule (Maguigan 1995). While determinations of relevance routinely rely on assumptions (25), most judges consider evidence of defendant or litigant's background to involve an exception determination of relevance that would not be required for evidence considered to be culturally neutral (Maguigan 1995). Additionally, many legal determinations of culpability rely on person which asks what an objectively reasonable person would and should do in circumstances (15, 93). Critiquing dominant bias inherent in any such standard, Renteln argues for formal defense that would 1) require judges to admit evidence of defendant or litigant's background and practices, and 2) consider reasonable person of defendant or litigant's background when applying reasonable person test (15, 35-39, 93). While nothing prevents judge from considering defendant or litigant's background as evidence that bears upon determination of guilt, wrongdoing, damages, etc., an overwhelming number of judges exclude such evidence, most often in ways that prejudice interests of minorities within US (7). Through her case studies, Renteln shows that many times, judges exclude evidence due to assumptions that courts should enforce principles of assimilation (104, 200), while simultaneously imagining that all other adjudications of culpability are not themselves constituted by norms and practices (201). In response, Renteln argues that legislatures must institute formal defense. By formal defense, Renteln does not mean that context would provide complete excuse for legally regulated behavior, but rather that it would be available as partial defense (188, 190, 191), with judges unable to use their discretion in order to exclude evidence (9,187). …

This chapter examines the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to a fair trial in criminal and civil cases, explaining that Article 6 of ECHR holds that the Strasbourg Court has no jurisdiction to reopen national legal proceedings or to substitute its own findings of fact for the conclusions of national courts. It discusses issues concerning the overall requirements of a fair hearing, right of access to court, and the extraterritorial effect of Article 6.