民主制度下的检察官——加州视角

P. McKinley
{"title":"民主制度下的检察官——加州视角","authors":"P. McKinley","doi":"10.31743/recl.9040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A prosecuting attorney in a democracy is very important in the processing of criminal cases- from pre-filing to final appeal. Much of the involvement of the District Attorney, both before a criminal case is filed, and during the prosecution of the case, stems from the “Exclusionary Rule”. It is the usual case that the police will bring their investigation, their arrest warrant or search warrant affidavit to a District Attorney to review it prior to taking it to the judge. In this connection, District Attorneys will themselves reject 5-10% of the warrant requests submitted to them for approval, often asking law enforcement to do some further investigation before resubmitting the warrant. Furthermore, because of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, only the District Attorney or the California State Attorney General can make the decision to file or not file a case. This Article illustrates the impact of such discretion. The problem of democracy is strictly connected to the process of DA’s selection, what has also been here presented. Another fundamental issue is a role of DA in voir dire, mainly because jury trials are guaranteed by the federal Constitution and are associated with the idea of democracy. Separation of Powers and Judicial Control of the DA, the police, and the sentencing of those convicted of crimes have been analyzed from the perspective of the California law. Additionally, the article includes final comments on the technological progress and its impact on criminal law and democracy. All the conclusions have been made in reference to Author’s experience as Assistant DA in California.","PeriodicalId":20823,"journal":{"name":"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prosecuting Attorneys in a Democracy – A California Perspective\",\"authors\":\"P. McKinley\",\"doi\":\"10.31743/recl.9040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A prosecuting attorney in a democracy is very important in the processing of criminal cases- from pre-filing to final appeal. Much of the involvement of the District Attorney, both before a criminal case is filed, and during the prosecution of the case, stems from the “Exclusionary Rule”. It is the usual case that the police will bring their investigation, their arrest warrant or search warrant affidavit to a District Attorney to review it prior to taking it to the judge. In this connection, District Attorneys will themselves reject 5-10% of the warrant requests submitted to them for approval, often asking law enforcement to do some further investigation before resubmitting the warrant. Furthermore, because of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, only the District Attorney or the California State Attorney General can make the decision to file or not file a case. This Article illustrates the impact of such discretion. The problem of democracy is strictly connected to the process of DA’s selection, what has also been here presented. Another fundamental issue is a role of DA in voir dire, mainly because jury trials are guaranteed by the federal Constitution and are associated with the idea of democracy. Separation of Powers and Judicial Control of the DA, the police, and the sentencing of those convicted of crimes have been analyzed from the perspective of the California law. Additionally, the article includes final comments on the technological progress and its impact on criminal law and democracy. All the conclusions have been made in reference to Author’s experience as Assistant DA in California.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.9040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.9040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

民主国家的检察官在刑事案件的处理过程中——从预立案到最后上诉——非常重要。地区检察官在提出刑事案件之前和在起诉案件期间的大部分参与都源于“排除规则”。通常情况下,警方会将他们的调查、逮捕令或搜查令宣誓书提交地区检察官审查,然后再提交法官。在这方面,地方检察官自己会拒绝5-10%提交给他们批准的搜查令申请,通常要求执法部门在重新提交搜查令之前进行进一步调查。此外,由于三权分立原则,只有地区检察官或加利福尼亚州检察长才能决定是否提起诉讼。本文说明了这种自由裁量权的影响。民主问题与选举副总统的过程密切相关,这一点在这里也有介绍。另一个基本问题是检察官在口头陈述中的作用,主要是因为陪审团审判受到联邦宪法的保障,并且与民主理念有关。从加州法的角度分析了检察官和警察的三权分立和司法控制,以及对罪犯的量刑。此外,文章还包括对技术进步及其对刑法和民主的影响的最后评论。所有的结论都是根据笔者在加州担任助理地方检察官的经验得出的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prosecuting Attorneys in a Democracy – A California Perspective
A prosecuting attorney in a democracy is very important in the processing of criminal cases- from pre-filing to final appeal. Much of the involvement of the District Attorney, both before a criminal case is filed, and during the prosecution of the case, stems from the “Exclusionary Rule”. It is the usual case that the police will bring their investigation, their arrest warrant or search warrant affidavit to a District Attorney to review it prior to taking it to the judge. In this connection, District Attorneys will themselves reject 5-10% of the warrant requests submitted to them for approval, often asking law enforcement to do some further investigation before resubmitting the warrant. Furthermore, because of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, only the District Attorney or the California State Attorney General can make the decision to file or not file a case. This Article illustrates the impact of such discretion. The problem of democracy is strictly connected to the process of DA’s selection, what has also been here presented. Another fundamental issue is a role of DA in voir dire, mainly because jury trials are guaranteed by the federal Constitution and are associated with the idea of democracy. Separation of Powers and Judicial Control of the DA, the police, and the sentencing of those convicted of crimes have been analyzed from the perspective of the California law. Additionally, the article includes final comments on the technological progress and its impact on criminal law and democracy. All the conclusions have been made in reference to Author’s experience as Assistant DA in California.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信