What is the basis that allows a judge to reject a defense in a criminal trial in the USA I have another question inspired from watching Law and Order. Often, a defense attorney will give notice of a defense, and both the defense lawyer and prosecutor will be in the Judges chambers making their arguments, with the judge deciding if they allow the defense or not. Why does a judge have this power? What is the basis in law? Why is a defense attorney not free to use whatever defense they feel best serves their clients?
A judge has the authority to determine what law applies to a case and to instruct the jury accordingly, and also has the authority to determine which evidence is admissible. Presentation of a defense, in practice, involves presentation of evidence supporting a legal theory. In order to be admissible in evidence in an evidentiary hearing or trial, the evidence must be relevant to a legal theory that is in some way connected to the evidence. If no reasonable juror could make a ruling establishing that a legally recognized defense was established based upon the proposed evidence (especially if the proposed evidence is prejudicial to the prosecution case on the basis of reasoning that is not a legally valid defense) it can be excluded. For example, evidence in support of the theory that the defendant murdered the victim because the murder victim raped the defendant's sister six years ago, might very well sway a jury to acquit the defendant. So a defense attorney might want to make this argument. But, this is not a legally recognized justification for murder, so evidence in support of this defense would be excluded as irrelevant by the judge. In federal court, and in states with rules of evidence based upon the federal rules of evidence, the primary legal authority behind this is Rule of Evidence 402: Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Some states also have procedural notice requirements for certain kinds of affirmative defenses. For example, if someone is arguing an alibi, a notice of an intent to present this defense must be provided by the defense a certain number of days before trial, so that the prosecution can develop the very different in kind type of evidence needed to rebut that defense, rather than having someone acquitted due to surprise when rebuttal evidence exists but the prosecution doesn't know in advance to locate the necessary witnesses and evidence to rebut this kind of defense.
There are a variety of reasons a judge might be disqualified. It could be that the judge was previous an attorney who represented someone (defendant, victim, key witness) involved in the case, it could be that the judge was a family member or former employer of the defense attorney, it could be that someone close to the judge or the judge personally was a victim of another crime committed by the person, it could be that the defendant or the defendant's family was a personal or family friend. The prior involvement in the protective order case could be a factor as well. The record isn't detailed enough to know. "Held" in this context means that the hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on that date noted was actually conducted, rather than being continued or vacated for some reason. Your guess is as good as mine regarding "CFW" and "DB" in this context. My best guess for DB is "daily booking" and CFW might be either the removed or replacement judge's initials (e.g. Carol Francis Wilson) but those are just wild guesses. Neither appears on a list of Oregon Department of Corrections acryomns or this criminal background check abbreviation list, or this list of Oregon law enforcement abbreviations. The only matches on this list of law enforcement abbreviations and none of the matches to DB (dog bite, dead body, detective bureau) make a lot of sense in this context.
They are not given independence from statute. This clause just says that conviction is not the end goal of the prosecutor. If in light of the evidence, the prosecutor comes to believe a person is not guilty, they are not to proceed with the prosecution. They must not hide exculpatory or mitigating evidence in order to get a conviction.
A summary is here: see for example Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789: 'in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel'. In the same vein, Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269 held that "an accused, in the exercise of a free and intelligent choice and with the considered approval of the court, may waive trial by jury, and so, likewise, may waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel". In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 it is held that this extends (via the 14th) to state courts. As to the expression "practice law", maybe the meaning of this expression is taken to be self-evident, though clearly it is not. Statutes that prohibit that act for non-lawyers generally specify things such as "for another person" or "holds himself out as entitled to practice law".
There are two important points you need to consider: jurors cannot be challenged (in the US sense), and the judge has wide discretion to handle any problems that arise in his court. If a juror has prior knowledge of the case, or could not be expected to be impartial, the judge (or sometimes the bailiff) will excuse him, and bring in one of the three replacements. If either side's lawyers dislike the look of a juror, they may if the judge allows ask questions to elicit such reasons, and then ask the judge to disqualify (I was on a jury where one of my colleagues was a policeman, and the defence suggested that he could not be impartial; the judge asked some questions and then excused him, and I understand he was never actually empanelled that week). But you are not permitted to select jurors you think will favour you or (equivalently) to ask to dismiss a juror without a factual disqualification; you can't, for example, ask about a juror's politics. Disqualifying a juror is thus rare, and the chance of four jurors having ties to a particular case is so remote as to be not worth worrying about. The second point, and the reason why written authority is hard to find, is that the judge has almost unlimited discretion over any action in his Court that does not infringe statute. There was a case in the newspapers recently where a juror discussed the case he was hearing in the pub, and was therefore dismissed from the jury; the judge consulted prosecution and defence and decided to proceed with eleven jurors rather than start the trial again. This does not mean that 'any trial can be heard with eleven jurors'; it means that in that particular case justice was best served by continuing. There is always the option to request a mistrial (which may or may not be granted) or to say that, a fair trial now being impossible, you intend to appeal on this point; but failing that the judge's decision on any procedural point is binding.
Discovery Basically, you ask. If your opponent thinks your request is out of bounds they object, give their reasons to the judge, you give yours and the judge orders them to produce the evidence or not. A lot of people think court cases have big “ah-ha” movements when a witness reveals something unknown on the stand. This rarely happens because there are no secrets in litigation - both sides have to clearly explain their case before, usually well before, they go to trial.
In the united-states, attorneys are almost never placed under oath. Their statements -- whether they are assertions of fact or legal arguments -- are not evidence, and they are not subject to cross examination. There are limited circumstances in which an attorney would be competent to present actual evidence. In such cases, the attorney would be sworn in as a witness and subject to cross examination, but the attorney would likely also be disqualified from acting as an attorney in such a situation under Model Rule 3.7.
This would establish a new precedent (I assume) You assume correctly. However, a precedent is only binding on lower courts and persuasive on courts at the same level so a trial judge precedent is not very far-reaching. Does this statute takes precedence over (overrules) the previous court precedent? Not exactly. The precedent was good for the old (common) law. Now the law has changed and the old precedent is irrelevant. Courts only interpret the law and legislatures are free to change the law within the limits of their constitutional power. Indeed, a fair number of laws are enacted because the legislature does not agree with how courts are ruling.