skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 81693 Find in a Library
Title: National Center for State Courts - A Blueprint for the Future Plenary Session, Parts 1, 2 and 3
Corporate Author: US Dept of Justice
LEAA Television Branch
United States of America
Date Published: Unknown
Sponsoring Agency: Henry Luce Foundation, Inc
New York, NY 10020
Michie Co
Charlottesville, VA 22906
US Dept of Justice

US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
West Publishing Co
St Paul, MN 55164
Xerox Corporation
Rochester, NY 14644
Format: Film
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Ranking judges and legal scholars discuss characteristics of the British, Scottish, Australian, and Canadian common law systems and compare their practices in an attempt to indicate areas of possible reform in the American justice system.
Abstract: These countries' common law practices are characterized by the adversary structure (as opposed to the inquisitorial), due process, and the jury system. In general, American practices are most similar to those in Canada. The American system has neither the English divided law profession (masters functioning at the pretrial stage and barristers being the experts in trial advocacy) nor the indemnity cost system, both of which significantly influence pretrial proceedings. Further, most of these Anglican systems no longer have jury trials in civil cases, making litigation more predictable. The American Bill of Rights establishes due process with a procedural rigidity that makes the administration of justice cumbersome and evasive, implying an 'irrelevancy of guilt.' The judge's role in Anglican justice systems seems to carry more authority in the control of advocates and in jury guidance than under the American system.
Index Term(s): Attorney work products; Attorney-jury interaction; Australia; Canada; Civil proceedings; Common law; Court reform; England; Judicial process; Jury instructions; Master (court-appointed); Pretrial discovery; Pretrial hearings; Right to Due Process; Scotland; Trial procedures; United States of America
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. 3 videotapes, total running time 2 hours 3 minutes, color, 1 inch.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=81693

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.