This thesis examines the mode of trial concerns in the U.S.A., New York State, California, England and Wales and Canada --specifically the ability of the jury to comprehend complex cases and the perception/reality that bench trials may not be as fair as jury trials. Defining complex cases as those involving serious fraud indictments, capital murder trials, and lawsuits or indictments against corporations and their managers, the thesis examines problems associated with jury trials in such cases. It evaluates the comparative law and customs and practices regarding the use of juries, emphasizing problems with jury selection, deficits in jury deliberation and post trial problems associated with jury verdicts. The thesis also evaluates the judge only trial, attempting to determine whether a state imposed non jury trial in a criminal case as is presently proposed in the England and Wales Parliament creates an unfairness to the defendant because bench trials significantly differ from jury trials in the application of the rules of evidence and in the role of the judge. The thesis reports on the results of a survey of New York State trial judges, a like survey of New York State lawyers, and the opinions of nine England and Wales judges authorized to try serious fraud cases who were interviewed regarding these issues. The surveys and interviews finds that there is a high degree of support for jury verdicts expressed by the judges, examines evidentiary and pretrial practices in both modes of trial and attempts to evaluate whether claims of procedural flaws and prejudice in bench trials by respected academics are accurate. The thesis concludes by affirming the competence of juries to try complex cases, proposing modifications to post jury verdict procedures to evaluate jury misconduct and advocating that the bench trial evidentiary rules and conduct rules become comparable to the jury trial. The thesis recommends that mode of trial choices be given to the defendant, advocates that when a bench trial is selected that peremptory challenges of the trial judge be permitted and postulates that these reforms will make the bench trial a more attractive alternative to the jury trial in complex cases.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:29:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jose Procopio da Silva de Souza Dias.pdf: 956456 bytes, checksum: 25dd32ca95a6f4a172583fa1db10f2ff (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-06-01 / This work addresses the issue of which jurisdictional body is competent to hear a malicious crime against life when the accused is entitled by constitutional precept to a specific forum on account of the exercise of a given position or mandate (special jurisdiction by force of position). Which constitutional provision should prevail: the one set out in article 5, XXXVIII (d), which states that malicious crimes against life are subject to trial by jury, or any other constitutional rule vesting another jurisdictional body with authority to judge an accused who exercises a given position or mandate? The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) had already tackled this issue and consolidated its stand in Precedent 721. But the assumptions underlying the STF rationale remained a bone of contention. After all, it stands to reason that, in favoring the special jurisdiction by force of position in detriment to trial by jury, perhaps this approach ran counter the most well-ingrained tenets of the Brazilian Constitution by downplaying the importance of trial by jury, which epitomizes the maxim that all power emanates from the people. This work thus makes a historical study of this issue and points out the relevant role played by people s courts in cementing democratic values. Such background is followed by an elaboration on the grounds and precepts of the current rule of law system, to herald the trial by jury as a proper measure of the very dignity of human person. Consequently, this work concludes favorably on the special jurisdiction of trial by jury, which shall prevail over the constitutional jurisdiction by force of position / O presente trabalho buscou enfrentar a questão relativa ao órgão jurisdicional competente para julgar a imputação de crime doloso contra a vida se o acusado for detentor de foro determinado constitucionalmente, por força do exercício de cargo ou mandato (foro por prerrogativa de função). Qual disposição constitucional deve prevalecer: a prevista no artigo 5º. XXXVIII, d , que impõe o Tribunal do Júri como juiz natural dos crimes dolosos contra a vida ou outra norma constitucional que competisse a órgão diverso o julgamento do acusado, dado que detentor de determinado cargo ou mandato? O Supremo Tribunal Federal já havia enfrentado a matéria, entendimento plasmado na Súmula 721. Desconfiávamos das premissas que orientaram o raciocínio do Tribunal. Estimávamos que, ao fazer avultar o foro por prerrogativa de função em detrimento do Tribunal do Júri, poderia ter imposto maus tratos à Constituição, ao não valorar devidamente a importância do Tribunal do Júri, dado que o poder emana do povo. Partimos da reconstrução histórica e constatamos o relevante papel dos tribunais populares na consolidação democrática. Aproximamos estas constatações ao Estado Democrático de Direito vigente, seus fundamentos e princípios para posicionar o Tribunal do Júri como consequência da própria dignidade da pessoa humana. Neste diapasão, segundo concluímos, sua competência é norma especial, em detrimento de foro por prerrogativa de função, mesmo que constitucionalmente estabelecido

Submitted by Cláudia Bueno (claudiamoura18@gmail.com) on 2015-10-16T20:51:04Z No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Rodrigo Lustosa Victor - 2014.pdf: 1488414 bytes, checksum: 4c118f8ff544ea2574ae1cf7edda2e7d (MD5) license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Luciana Ferreira (lucgeral@gmail.com) on 2015-10-19T13:32:41Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Rodrigo Lustosa Victor - 2014.pdf: 1488414 bytes, checksum: 4c118f8ff544ea2574ae1cf7edda2e7d (MD5) license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-10-19T13:32:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Dissertação - Rodrigo Lustosa Victor - 2014.pdf: 1488414 bytes, checksum: 4c118f8ff544ea2574ae1cf7edda2e7d (MD5) license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-07-31 / This research work analyses the way citizens from the city of Goiânia, Brazil, summoned to serve as members of juries in cases of homicides by police officers look at and judge such crimes. We tried to identify a recurrent practice in our days of murders by police officers, but formed nevertheless along a historical process. After that, we have outlined the path in between the crime fact and its final trial, reconstructing the judicial rite from a contextualized perspective, aimed at the concrete aspects related to murder attempts and actual murders in first degree by police officers. Finally, we have recovered the historical origins of the jury trials, its formal mechanisms of operation and, through an extensive field research, analyzed how the jury trials, in the city of Goiânia, have been judging homicide cases allegedly carried out by police officers. / A presente pesquisa aborda a questão de como os cidadãos goianienses, convocados a servir perante os Tribunais do Júri desta urbe, enfrentam e julgam casos de violência policial homicida. Para tal, buscou-se identificar a existência de uma prática policial de assassinatos, presente na atualidade, mas que se instituiu durante determinado percurso histórico. Em seguida foi explicitado o caminho que separa a ocorrência do fato-crime de seu julgamento final, reconstruindo-se o respectivo rito procedimental a partir de um olhar contextualizado, voltado para concretude dos feitos referentes a crimes dolosos contra a vida envolvendo policiais. Por último, foram indicadas as origens históricas do Tribunal do Júri, os mecanismos formais de seu funcionamento e, através de extensa pesquisa de campo, observado como este tribunal, na cidade de Goiânia, tem julgado os casos de homicídios supostamente praticados por policiais.