Suchergebnisse

Anecdotal evidence claims that in criminal cases, trial judges admit the prosecution's expert witnesses more readily than the defendants', and in civil cases the reverse is true; judges exclude plaintiffs' experts more often than civil defendants' experts. This occurs despite the fact that, with few exceptions, the same rules of admissibility apply to all parties and, in most jurisdictions, across criminal and civil cases. This article empirically tests this differential by reviewing judicial decisions to admit or exclude evidence holding the type of expert testimony constant, fire and arson evidence, across criminal and civil cases in the United States. The study examines the admissibility of fire and arson investigation experts in criminal and civil cases across all legal parties in fifty‐seven federal and state opinions in the United States. The findings offer empirical support of a bias in criminal cases and in civil cases which present expert witnesses at trial, and is less pronounced, but still evident, on appeal. Specifically, the role of the party that offers the evidence has a profound effect on whether arson evidence is admitted, even when factors around the judge's political affiliation, attorney experience, expert qualifications, and rules of evidence are taken into account.

This study examined 32 Australian cases of women prosecuted for killing their abusive male partners in self-defence between 2010 and 2023. The objective was to track the legal pathways and identify salient factors influencing both acquittals and convictions. While most women received a manslaughter conviction by pleading guilty, nearly all cases that proceeded to trial resulted in no conviction. Key findings include: the utility of partial defences as a safety net for self-defence; evidence of overcharging; the identification of "evidentiary checkpoints" at trial to downgrade or withdraw murder charges; a checklist for legal counsel advising clients on the risks of trial; the advantage of private legal counsel in successful self-defence claims; and the systemic disadvantage of Indigenous women, highlighting the need for continued research. These findings underscore the intricate dynamics within the legal system when addressing cases of intimate partner violence, emphasising the need for comprehensive reforms and support structures.

While most criminal cases are resolved by a guilty plea, little empirical research has examined guilty plea wrongful convictions. This study explored this issue through semistructured interviews with 27 legal professionals in Queensland, Australia ( n = 16 defense lawyers; n = 7 prosecutors; n = 4 magistrates). Driven by a systems and organizational perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis exploring the structural and organizational features that may systematically contribute to erroneous guilty plea convictions. We found an overarching emphasis on efficiency and pressure to quickly resolve cases, coupled with practical constraints impeding legal professionals from ensuring guilty pleas are appropriate and accurate. There was also a general acceptance of false guilty pleas through the justification of "choice," legitimized by the authoritative precedent set by Meissner v R (1995). The findings indicate the routine nature of erroneous guilty plea convictions and raise important implications regarding the current validity of a guilty plea, as they do not always reflect actual guilt.