Voting While Trans: How Voter ID Laws Unconstitutionally Compel the Speech of Trans Voters
In: Michigan Law Review, Forthcoming
298313 results
Sort by:
In: Michigan Law Review, Forthcoming
SSRN
The legality of the evidence is one of the basic components of procedural legitimacy in general, which requires that the law be the source for every rule that allows infringement of rights and freedoms. The criminal procedures are, in essence, and reality, guarantees of the rights and freedoms of the accused, which ensure that his freedom is not violated and the right to defend himself. These procedures were going through two stages, one before the trial and the other taking place during the trial. In each of these two stages, the freedom of the accused is exposed to several risks, arrest, arrest, interrogation, and monitoring of correspondence and communications, so these procedures must be carried out in accordance with the rules specified in the law – the Code of Procedure Criminal – that the constitutional legitimacy of the Code of Criminal Procedure is based mainly on the protection provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure for the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and without the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not possible to apply the Penal Code, that is the road linking the two stages of criminalization and punishment, and through it, the Penal Code moves from criminalization to punishment, and for this to be achieved, criminal procedures must be carried out as acts Legal aims to protect rights and freedoms within the framework of constitutional legitimacy based on the origin of innocence, and therefore the evidence presented to prove what contradicts the origin of innocence must be legitimate, that is, it should not be the result of procedures tainted by violating personal freedom and rights of defense, and if it is, it is considered illegal evidence and it is not valid Reliance on it to issue a verdict of conviction.
BASE
In: Studies in family planning: a publication of the Population Council, Volume 1, Issue 53, p. 1
ISSN: 1728-4465
In: 19 Public Law Review 234 (2008)
SSRN
In: (2011) 15 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 62
SSRN
Blog: Reason.com
concludes a magistrate judge in recommendations to a federal district court.
In: Facta Universitatis / University of Niš: the scientific journal. Series law and politics, p. 181
ISSN: 2406-1786
This paper focuses on the review of standards established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with regards to the use of evidence obtained in breach of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), ultimately resulting in a violation of the right to a fair trial. Due consideration has been given to the use of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3, Article 8 and the privilege against self-incrimination. Even though the specific rules on admissibility of evidence were to be regulated by each of the Contracting States, the Court set out standards on the use of evidence in order to address the primary question: Does the use of evidence obtained in breach of the Convention rights render the proceedings as a whole to be unfair? The authors analyze the Court jurisprudence on this matter and the evolution of these standards over time in order to respond to this question.
SSRN
Working paper
In: History of economics review, Volume 58, Issue 1, p. 57-70
ISSN: 1838-6318
SSRN
In: U. of Adelaide Law Research Paper Forthcoming
SSRN
In: (2011) 55(2) Crime, Law and Social Change 199
SSRN
In: Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Volume 55, Issue 406, p. 1581-1588
ISSN: 1744-0378
The scientific article is devoted illumination of some aspects of the procedure of conducting an investigative (search) action, namely the presentation a person for identification. The purpose of the article is to analyze the study of one of the important criteria for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings - the procedural form. Different points of view of scientists on the concepts of admissibility of evidence and procedural form have been studied, because today the term "procedural form" is not defined by any normative document. The organizational and tactical especially of producing a person for identification are considered and the procedure of conducting this investigative (search) action in foreign countries, in particular in the United States of America, is analyzed. The article provides examples of court decisions in which evidence was declared inadmissible due to violation of procedural form. In particular, attention is focused on the issue of compliance with the proper procedure for obtaining evidence and recording the results of action. The reasons for violation of the conditions of admissibility of evidence during the pre-trial investigation and the possibility of their elimination are indicated. The article emphasizes that in accordance with the current legislation and judicial practice, any non-compliance with the procedural form is grounds for declaring the evidence inadmissible, which leads to the lack of proof of guilt of the suspect. The opinions of some scholars are analyzed, who believe that insignificant violations of the criminal procedural law can be considered admissible in the case of legislative determination of which procedural violations are significant. It is concluded that the prosecution during the collection and recording of evidence should make every effort to comply with all requirements of the procedural action in accordance with the criminal procedure law, as this is a prerequisite for obtaining admissible evidence in criminal proceedings. In order for the evidence to be a sufficient basis for a court's finding of guilt, the identification procedure and protocol must be appropriate. ; Наукова стаття присвячена висвітленню деяких аспектів процедури проведення слідчої (розшукової) дії, а саме пред'явлення особи для впізнання. Метою статті є аналіз вивчення одного з важливих критеріїв допустимості доказів у кримінальному судочинстві - процесуальної форми. Досліджено різні погляди науковців щодо понять допустимості доказів та процесуальної форми, адже сьогодні термін «процесуальна форма» не визначений жодним нормативним документом. Розглянуто організаційні й тактичні особливості пред'явлення особи для впізнання та проаналізовано процедуру проведення цієї слідчої (розшукової) дії у зарубіжних країнах, зокрема у Сполучених Штатах Америки. У статті наведено приклади судових рішень, у яких докази визнано недопустимими з огляду на порушення процесуальної форми. Зокрема, акцентується увага на проблематиці дотримання належної процедури одержання доказів та фіксуванні результатів дії. Зазначено причини порушення умов допустимості доказів під час досудового розслідування та можливості їх усунення. У статті наголошено, що відповідно до чинного законодавства та судової практики будь-яке недотримання процесуальної форми є підставою до визнання доказів недопустимими, що призводить до недоведеності вини підозрюваної особи. Проаналізовано думки деяких науковців, які вважають, що несуттєві порушення кримінального процесуального закону можуть вважатися допустимими у разі законодавчого визначення, які саме процесуальні порушення є суттєвими. Зроблено висновок, що сторона обвинувачення під час збирання та фіксації доказів має докласти максимальних зусиль для дотримання всіх вимог проведення процесуальної дії відповідно до кримінального процесуального закону, адже це є обов'язковою умовою отримання допустимих доказів у кримінальному провадженні. Для того щоб докази були достатньою підставою для висновку суду про винуватість особи, процедура та протокол пред'явлення для впізнання мають бути належними.
BASE