Would that prevent prejudice based on physical appearance or make the jury less sympathetic to the defendant?
No. Defendants often are cleaned and dressed up by their attorneys. The opposite is more likely. Jurors need to see the defendant. It is not likely to cause negative bias in most cases. Not seeing the defendant would allow the jurors' imaginations to create a person who fit the accusation.
Hello deaves:
Nahh.. That's what voir dire is supposed to do.. Plus, I like what the 6th Amendment says about "CONFRONTING the witnesses against you" You can't do that if you're hidden away.
excon
My point was the jury not see the defendant. Not the defendant be hidden.
Seems if justice is supposed to be blind then why would the jury need to see anything other than the evidence and witnesses?
Hello again, deaves:
The defendant has a RIGHT to look into the eyes of those testifying against him, and the jury needs to OBSERVE that "confrontation".
Plus, voir dire is when the potential jurors are sworn to tell the truth about their biases and prejudices, and can be DISMISSED if the defendant doesn't like the answer, or to a limited degree, for NO reason at all. Is that a perfect system? Nahh...
excon
I don't think I would like that as a defendant or person on the jury either.
Oh yeah. Like they do in Mexico. Sure. That works wonders.
C. Litigation in Mexico.
Generally, there is not as much civil litigation in Mexico as in the U.S. The main reasons for this fact are that in Mexico litigation is expensive, there are no punitive damage awards, parties must pay for their own attorney's fees and costs, and the litigation process is very lengthy. Accordingly, litigation in Mexico is not practical unless absolutely unavoidable to accomplish a vital business objective. Note that although there are no strictly punitive damage awards in Mexico, awards for "normal damages" (da�os morales) are possible under certain circumstances set forth in the Civil Code. These awards, however, never amount to the astronomical figures often seen in U.S. decisions.
Other characteristics of litigation in Mexico are that no jury trials, which is a fundamental right in most U.S. cases, formal, written declarations are used more frequently than the oral hearings commonly used in the U.S. courts; negotiation and mediation are encouraged, which is also a growing trend telephone calls or written communications.
In U.S. litigation, the "discovery" process (gathering evidence) is monumentally significant, controlled primarily by attorneys, and constitutes much of the expense and time associated with litigation. In Mexico, however, the judge controls his process. Mexican judges have a much more active role in developing a case than do U.S. Judges. They help narrow the legal and factual issues, select witness and gather evidence. This may be a disadvantage if a party wants the lawyer to have more control over a case, as is the U.S. tradition.
Excluding administrative proceedings, most litigation is settled for the above stated reasons and because in Mexico, judgments are often difficult to enforce against even a solvent defendant, given that judgments can be contested in a separate amparo proceeding, which can drag on for several years. Further, in Mexico a party can file an interlocutory, or intermediate, appeal on evidentiary and other issues at various stages of a case. For obvious reasons, the authors recommend that people and companies doing business in Mexico avoid litigation by using creative and sincere negotiation; incorporating arbitration provisions into their contracts in case of irreconcilable conflicts; adequately securing obligations where possible; and, more importantly, knowing the parties with whom they are dealing.
D. Criminial Law.
Mexican criminal law has several interesting and distinctive features. In Mexico, one is deemed guilty until proven innocent. No death penalty exists in Mexico, a feature Mexico shares with most Latin American countries for historic reasons. In Mexico, the commission of fraud is a criminal offense, unlike most fraud in the U.S., which is usually considered a civil "tort". In virtually all Mexican prisons, prisoners are allowed regular conjugal visits, and greater freedoms within the confines of the prisons, than in most U.S. penitentiaries. Mexican law never allows parole or bail on personal recognizance. An individual charged with a criminal offense must post a financial bond to be released on bail, which may not be available if the potential sentence in years surpasses a certain limit under a formula set forth in Mexico's Constitution.
I haven't found much about Mexico I care for. Their legal system most of all.
Thanks for the cliff notes on their legal process.
There is some merit to your suggestion. In the Malcolm Gladwell book Blink, he noted that hiring auditions for classical music orchestras were made "blind" because the judges were influenced (either overtly or subconciously) by the appearance/gender of the potential candidates.
I think the primary objection to applying a similar standard in criminal trials is defendants often give testimony, and jurors are expected to evaluate the credibility of the testimony given by defendants (or witnesses). One of the ways we assess the credibility of a speaker is through intonation, facial expressions, and body language. If jurors cannot see the defendant when the defendant testifies, those cues are lost.
Perhaps one can argue our justice system would work better if all parties gave evidence filtered through XtraNormal voice actors, but it would be a fairly radical change from the status quo.
Yes, Great Question.
True, but officially that argument cannot be made as it is not admitted evidence. I believe it is best for the jury to see who they are judging though. I've had this conversation a few times before and I always say Make your client be present at trial. He needs to look his accusers and the prosecutor in the eye, whether he testifies or not.
That's an interesting idea. The defendant would have to waive the right to face his accuser. That alone might bias the judge or the jury.
This (blind interviews) is also used in some HR departments; nothing new really. And yes, orchestras generally audition musicians from behind a screen. The rationale is not the same as for jurors being able to see a defendant.
maybe
