Suchergebnisse

Die Autorin untersucht, warum die pretrial discovery in den USA ein unabdingbares Instrument zur Erforschung des Sachverhaltes bildet und weshalb in Deutschland auf sie verzichtet werden kann. Sie erörtert die historische Entwicklung des Zivilprozesses in den USA und in Deutschland insbesondere mit Bezug auf die Vorlage von Urkunden. Daran schließt sich die rechtsvergleichende Darstellung der aktuellen Rechtslage an. Das Ziel besteht darin, durch Aufzeigen der Funktionen der pretrial discovery das Verständnis für das fremde Rechtssystem zu fördern und so möglicherweise dem Justizkonflikt etwas an Schärfe zu nehmen. Zudem stellt die Untersuchung heraus, durch welche rechtlichen Mechanismen das Fehlen der pretrial discovery im deutschen Zivilprozess kompensiert wird

The burdens and challenges of discovery—especially electronic discovery—are usually associated with civil, not criminal cases. This is beginning to change. Already common in white-collar crime cases, voluminous digital discovery is increasingly a feature of ordinary criminal prosecutions. This Article examines the explosive growth of digital evidence in criminal cases and the efforts to manage its challenges. It then advances three claims about criminal case discovery in the digital age. First, the volume, complexity, and cost of digital discovery will incentivize the prosecution and the defense to cooperate more closely in cases with significant amounts of electronically stored information (ESI). Second, cooperation between the parties will not be sufficient to address the serious challenges that digital discovery presents to the fair and accurate resolution of criminal cases. And third, for that reason, digital discovery in criminal cases needs to be regulated more closely. In crafting such regulation, courts and legislators can build on the civil procedure model, which has grappled with the challenges of electronic discovery for over two decades. The civil procedure experience suggests that cooperation between the parties, active judicial involvement, and more detailed rules are essential to the effective management of digital discovery. The civil litigation model has its limitations, however, and policymakers must chart new ground to address some of the unique demands of criminal cases. Recognizing the significant resource and bargaining disparities in criminal cases, judges need to limit certain negotiated waivers of discovery so as to prevent abuse. Where the interests of justice demand it, courts may also need to help defendants obtain access to digital discovery in detention or gather digital evidence from third parties. These and other measures can help ensure that the cost and complexity of digital discovery do not undermine the fairness and accuracy of criminal proceedings.

The names of the majority neurotransmitters are little known to the average citizen. But the mention of adrenaline immediately generates a storm of associations. Someone's head will have a profile of Jason Statham from film of the same name. The purpose of the article. The adrenaline rushed a symbol of something risky and attractive in its own way, but what is adrenaline from the point of view of a neurophysiologist - the goal proposed article. A number of studies have shown that y athletes during training and competitive loads increases the activity of sympatho-adrenal and hypothalamic pituitary-adrenal systems. In this case there is an activation of physical activity mechanisms of general adaptation, which leads to changes in hormonal spectrum, which provides mobilization as energy and plastic reserves of the body, as well as its restoration. One of the groups of stress hormones produced by the cerebral layer of the adrenal glands and called catecholamines. This group includes hormones adrenaline and norepinephrine. Both hormones are synthesized fromamino acids of tyrosine under the influence of nerve impulses. The main hormone of this group is adrenaline. We set for the aim is to study the historical stages that preceded the discovery adrenal hormones, using comparative and historical methods. Relevance of research. In 1894 George Oliver and Edward Schaefer demonstrated vasoconstrictor (vasoconstrictor) and pressor effect of extraction from the adrenal glands. An important role in study of the properties of adrenaline played a role Leipzig surgeon Heinrich Brown, about the possibility use of adrenaline under local anesthesia. So adrenaline, widely used in anesthesiology, which remains relevant to this day. Conclusions. Study of historical information about the discovery hormones form a holistic view and expand knowledge in the field physiology and pathophysiology of the endocrine system.

and prosecutors. Part I of this Article argues that the conventional theory of hearsaydiscovery balance does not reflect the reality of modem federal practice. An imbalance has arisen because, in the last quarter century, developments in the law of evidence and confrontation are at odds with developments-or one might say nondevelopments-in the law of criminal discovery. Since enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975, both the law of evidence and modem Confrontation Clause doctrine have evolved toward broader admission of hearsay in criminal cases. Contrary to conventional theory, that evolution has at least matched-and probably has outpaced-the trend toward more liberal admission of hearsay in civil cases. But while federal courts criminal cases, the rules of criminal discovery show no sign of adapting to that reality. As a result, in comparison to other litigants, federal criminal defendants now face a litigation environment that features both minimum discovery and maximum admissible hearsay. Part II offers some proposals to address that imbalance by expanding a defendant's right to learn in advance what hearsay he must face, and his right to gather "ammunition" to contest that hearsay. Where appropriate, I have included proposals that would require the amendment of existing rules. But recognizing the practical difficulties facing any rule-making initiative, my principal focus is to suggest more effective means of applying Rule 16, the Jencks Act, and the Brady doctrine-the major discovery tools presently available to criminal defendants-to the task of contesting prosecution hearsay. This Article is not a critique of developments in the law of evidence, nor of the Court's application of the Confrontation Clause to hearsay. It is not an argument that more, or less, hearsay should be admitted in criminal cases. Instead, it takes as a starting point the undeniable reality that, for good or ill, today's federal criminal trials include a wider variety of admissible hearsay than ever before. My aim is to show how the process of criminal discovery can and should adapt to that reality to correct the hearsay-discovery balance when the government relies on hearsay.