刑事管轄制度ppt課件-閱讀頁(yè)
2025-01-26 12:09本頁(yè)面
【正文】 有權(quán)委托辯護(hù)人。律師會(huì)見(jiàn)犯罪嫌疑人、被告人，不被監(jiān)聽(tīng)。 律師自行調(diào)查取證的，憑律師執(zhí)業(yè)證書(shū)和律師事務(wù)所證明，可以向有關(guān)單位或者個(gè)人調(diào)查與承辦法律事務(wù)有關(guān)的情況。但是，發(fā)表危害國(guó)家安全、惡意誹謗他人、嚴(yán)重?cái)_亂法庭秩序的言論除外。但是大法官援引的是憲法第十四修正案，而非第四或第六修正案。該案只適用于聯(lián)邦法院，不適用于州法院。 ? [1] Powell v. Alabama, 287 . 45(1932). 1963年的 Gideon v. Wainwright案 ? “ … the Court in Betts v. Brady made an abrupt break with its own wellconsidered precedents. In returning to these old precedents, sounder we believe than the law, we but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice. Not only these precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assures a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public’s interesting an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defense. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. ”(Mr. Justice Black) 1972年的 Argersinger v. Halin案 ? “ the Supreme Court extended the right to counsel to all indigent misdemeanour defendants faced with a potential jail sentence.”[1] ? 刑事被告律師權(quán)也開(kāi)始適用于輕罪（ misdemeanour），“ there is nothing in the language of the sixth Amendment, its history, or in the decisions of this Court, to indicate that it was intended to embody a re retraction of the right to counsel in petty offenses…” [2] [1] Steven L. Emanuel, Criminal Procedure, at 332(2022). ? [2] Argersinger v. Halin, 407 . 25(1972). (三 )律師權(quán)適用的場(chǎng)合（ stages at which right to counsel attaches） ? 警察訊問(wèn) ? 最初指控或初次到庭（ initial appearance） ? 聯(lián)邦最高法院在 1963年的 “ White v. Maryland”案中提出了 “ 關(guān)鍵場(chǎng)合 ” （ critical stages）理論，認(rèn)為被告初次到庭所作的陳述（在即使是在無(wú)律師情況下）可以在正式審判中當(dāng)作彈劾他的證據(jù)使用。 [2] ? 起訴程序（ indictment） ? 只在一些州，大陪審團(tuán)審查起訴時(shí)要求律師在場(chǎng)。 [3] ? 心理狀況檢驗(yàn) ? 上訴審 ? 在 “ Douglas v. California”案中，最高法院認(rèn)為，刑事被告在上訴審中無(wú)被指定律
教學(xué)課件相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1