Cours Anglais Juridique L2

Anglais Juridique :

Evaluation : QCM de 30 min juste sur le cours pas sur les TD

Lecture 1: Miranda vs. Arizona

Custody Rights in Common Law

Custody as two meanings: parent’s responsibility (garde des parents) or the state of being held by the police (GAV).

When you’re in custody, those who arrested you might try to make you speak using torture or pressure and the police might even try to make people confess to crimes, regardless of whether they are guilty or not, this would lead to miscarriages of justice (erreur judiciaire).

In UK, the most famous and striking case of miscarriages of justice is « The Birmingham Six Case », in the 70’s the Irish terrorist group wanted to export their actions in the whole UK

In November 1974 the IRA (terrorist group) attacked in two Birmingham pubs, killing 21 people.

The arrest we’re efficient because 6 men from Northern Ireland were arrested just 3 hours after the attack, the explained they were going to visit their family but in fact they were also planning to attend the funeral of an IRA bomber → perfect suspect. After being subjected to extreme physical and psychological abuse, they signed false confessions. The psychological things were about their family.

They were sentenced to life in prison but they did not go to prison because a TV show called « Who bombed Birmingham » showed that that was the wrong persons so in 1991 they were released and received about 1million (livres).

If you don’t have an automatic device to control the interrogation process, there will inevitably be improper police interrogation practices, like coerced confessions. (Process different Trial=procès).

There is a danger for arrested people specially when they are not very intelligent or don’t have a good education, the most famous case of this is « Miranda vs Arizona » in 1966.

Mr Miranda is young men who live in Arizona who is not very educated, he had a hard life, in 1963 he was arrested at 22 years old for kidnapping and rape of an 18 years old woman. He signed a written confession of guilt, but his rights were read only after he had confessed orally and that’s problematic because normally you have to know your rights before everything.

The original trial (1ere instance) was State vs Miranda in 1965 in which Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape, which is not a surprise because he confessed.

The first appeal was Miranda Vs State of Arizona (aux USA il y a une cours Suprême par etat), the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the conviction, holding his 5th amendment rights were not violated.

Amendment V to the Constitution: privilege against self-incrimination (« to be a witness against himself »).

The second appeal is Miranda vs Arizona in 1966, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) accepted only few cases which are might have big consequences in the whole country.

The Basic question was: in a trial, can you use information that was obtained illegally?

If the answer is yes, police could use torture etc.

Miranda’s arguments:

- In custody, people have some rights, guaranteed by the 5th Amendment: the right to remain silent, the right to the presence of an attorney/lawyer.

- No one informed Miranda of his rights, either before or during the interrogation

- When the prosecution presents information in court, it must be able to show that the defendant knew he didn’t have the answer the questions asked by the police.

- Respecting the procedure is vital, because of the nature of the American justice system, which is an adversarial (not an inquisitorial system like the French one): in the French one the judge is active by trying to find the truth in the process but in the USA, the judge just have to make sure that the procedure is strictly followed

In the adversarial system? the role of the jury is to decide whether the defendant is guilty; it can only work if both parties involved have the same legal arms, very important when the defendant cannot defend himself correctly.

The court’s decision: Miranda’s conviction was overturned (décision renversée) and it lead to the « Miranda rights » which govern how police must conduct an arrest and interrogation, it didn’t invent the rights but the « Miranda Rights » was a clarification of the 5th amendment rights.

Before any questioning, the person must be warned that:

- he has a right to remain silent

- any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him

- he has a right to the presence of an attorney

- this lawyer may either be retained or appointed (choisi ou commis d’office)

After the case, every policeman received a Miranda Card

The Miranda warning has become a pop culture icon.

Next week: Gideon vs Wainwright (1963)

Lecture 2 : The OJ Simpson trials

PART 1

1994, 2 years before important event in the same States (California). The OJ Simpson trials started 2 years before.

Historical background : the Rodney King beating :

• In March 1991, Rodney King and two other passengers were driving above the speed limit in LA
• A patrol car tried to stop them (stop pay money and go home normally but he was drunk, smoked Marijuana, breakage, he was on parole and so on).
• King refused to pull over (se rabattre sur le côté) and tried to outrun (semer) the police. High-speed (grande vitesse) chase through some residential neighborhoods ; after 8 miles, King’s car was cornered (coincée) : the 2 passengers were taken into custody without incident but Rodney King remained in the car.
• When King finally emerged, he acted in a strange way giggle (glousser). He then grabbed his buttocks (toucher le popotin), so the officers thought King was reaching for weapon. That’s when things got dirty (c’est là que les choses ont mal tourné).
• 8 officers tried to restrain King (maitriser), kicking him (mettre des coup de latte) using a Taser, striking him 56 times with their batons. He suffered a fractured cheekbone (pomettes), a broken right ankle, broken teeth, kidney damage (dégâts corporel), bruises (contusions), lacerations…
• The officers didn’t know they were being filmed by a nearby (dans les environs) resident (George Holliday) contacted the police then gave the tape to a local TV channel. It became a big success. The footage became an instant media sensation.

Trial and verdict :

3 officers and their supervisor were charged (mettre en examen qq)

• Assault (agression, attaque, frappe) with a deadly weapon;
• Unnecessarily beating a suspect under colour of authority ;

• filin a false police report (avoir falsifier le rapport)

The composition of the jury was: 10 white, 1 Latino, 1 Asian. The 4th was spared by a hung jury (procès ajourné pour défaut d’unanimité dans le jury)

→ Reactions to acquittal : the city was on fire, looting (pillage), great anger in the black community which thought the verdict was racially biased. Violent clashes, arson (incendits volontaires), and looting in downtown LA from April 29 until May 4, 1992. Consequences of the riots: 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, nearly $1 billion in financial losses (perte)

...