Hi all,

In a news article on yahoo.com, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...urope_abortion

I came across this statement:
"He was acquitted in 1996, but the Lyons Court of Appeal reversed the verdict a year later and sentenced him to six months in prison".

Is this report correct? In the US, you cannot be tried again for a crime after being acquitted.

Do other European countries permit overturning acquittal verdicts?

The US legal system is unique in many ways. Citizens of other countries (naturally varying by country)do not have all of the rights we do either while under arrest or during trial. the French legal system - and also in some other parts of Europe - is based on the Napoleonic code - which is vastly different than our system. Just one major - you are not assumed to be innoocent until proven guilty - once you are charged you are presumed to be guilty and have to prove your innocence.

This is why its incredibly important not to break any laws - or even violate traffic regulations in other parts of the world.

Not everyone would agree that the double jeopardy convention is a "right".

There has been pressure to repeal the double jeopardy system in the UK (ie to allow retrial after an innocent verdict) because of the widespread belief that criminals are getting off too easily, and as a result of a particularly unpleasant murder case where no-one's been found guilty.

Personally - and I'm sure I speak for many - I find my rights are under far greater threat from uncontrolled crime than from the ability of governments to re-open cases.

I don't know about the legal system, but the sentence you wrote didn't say he was tried again. It said the judge changed the verdit. They can do that in the US, also -- I've heard of cases where the judge sets aside a jury verdict because it cannot be supported by the facts or something.

Verdicts can be overturned in the US, also, for various reasons, that's why there are appeals. That's all you heard about in law shows, they are always appealing verdicts, don't you want the Practice or Law & Order? I know that's the other direction, but it's kind of the same idea, just giving the prosecution the same rights to appeal a verdict.

Hi Christina,

In the US no one can change a verdict from "not guilty" to "guilty", nor can a person be retried on the same charge if found "not guilty".

That's why I asked the question.

I suspect that when all is said and done, the results are pretty much the same in both countries. My French house was vandalized as part of a drunken spree and the perpetrators were caught red-handed by the neighbor's son who, although a policeman, could not arrest them because he was off-duty--I guess that citizens' arrest does not exist. They were recognized, reported and arrested, and I am told that it will take at least three years before they come to trial or whatever, and that I should not get my hopes up in getting damages back. In the meantime they are out in the community.

I have often wondered if the US system might be improved by offering a defendant a deal at the beginning of his or her trial. Each defendant would decide prior to the trial whether or not to accept the right to appeal. If they choose the possibility of appeal, the state also has the right to appeal a "not guilty" verdict. If they decline the right of appeal, the state has no recourse if the verdict is not guilty. If such a convention was implemented, it would probably be prudent to have judge review each non-appealable case to verify that no egregious procedural violations occurred.

The existing US system does offer the maximum protection for the innocent, but it also provides abundant opportunity for exploitation (by almost limitless appeals) by the guilty.

Yes, under french law, the prosecutor can appeal an acquital verdict.


But the post about peole not being considered innocent until proven guilty under french law and having to prove your innocence(I already read the same statement on other american and english boards) is total bullshit.

It's indeed not mentionned in the Napoleonic code, since it's not a legal but a constitutionnal principle under french law. Art. 11 of the 1789 declaration of human rights (which has constitutionnal value in France) : "Toute personne accusée d'un acte delictueux est presumee innocente jusqu'a ce que sa culpabilite ait ete legalement etablie au cours d'un proces public ou toutes les garanties necessaires a sa defense lui auront ete assurées"

Bad translation "Any individual accused of an unlawful action is considered innocent until his guilt has been legally established in a public trial during which all guarantees needed for his defense had been provided to him"


There are many differences between the anglo-saxon and the french legal systems. The most obvious is that the anglo-saxon countries use an "accusatory" system, while France and other countries which adopted a system based on napoleonic code use an "inquisitory" system.

In other words : in an anglo-saxon country, the inquiries are led by a prosecutor whose job is to prove the accused is guilty. In france, they are led by a judge who act as a kind of "third party" between the two sides : the accused and the prosecutor and must gather evidences in favor of the defendant (evidences of his innocence) as much as in favor of the prosecution (evidences of his guilt).

The reasonning behind this system is that the anglo-saxon system is unbalanced in favor of the prosecution, since the inquiry is led by the prosecutor, himself backed by the state, hence has much more means than the defendant (except if said defendant is very wealthy, for instance). So, the prosecution has an easier job at finding evidences of guilt than the defendant at countering them.

In other word, the reasonning would be that the american system doesn't provide enough guarantees to the accused.

Of course, the french "inquisitory" system has its own flaws, and though this acusatory/inquisitory difference is the main one from a theorical point of view, there are many, many others, which are probably much more obvious for a random observer who never studied laws. I'm not going into much more details, since this post is already long enough.

Just to give an example, an american trial looks more like a sport match, following many rules, with the judge as a referee. A french trial looks more like a debate between the judges, the prosecution, the accused and his lawyers, the victims and his lawyers, etc..led by the judge presiding the court. For instance, the judge will ask questions to a witness, said witness will routinely argue with the accused, etc..

Another very important difference I didn't mention is that there is no "guily/not guilty" plea under french law. As the consequence, there can be no deal between the prosecution and the accused. Whether or not you admit to the crime doesn't matter. In both cases, you'll get a full trial, and the jury will have to decide on your guilt.

Theorically, you could very well state you indeed viciously raped and murdered the little girl and be found "not guilty" by the jury. And since any possible weird thing take place sooner or later in courts, it did actually happen.

I mentionned this because deals with the prosecution and guilty pleas are an essential part of the anglo-saxon justice system, but once again, there are *a lot* of other major differences I'm not going to list now.

Oh! And a last comment concerning the following statement made by another poster :


"The existing US system does offer the maximum protection for the innocent"


How do you know that? Is it, as I suspect, an assumption of the "we're the best by definition" kind, or is this statement the result of an extensive study of the legal systems in all other democratic countries, followed by a careful comparison of the flaws and advantages of each of these systems re the protections offered to the accused? (I somehow doubt it).

In Scotladn we too have a version of double jeopardy. If you "thole your assize" (suffer your trial) you cannot be retired. It's one of the many rights the current incredibly illiberal government is trying to take from the accused in England. Thank God for a Scots Parliament.

Clair, it's rude of me to correct your Enlish, but the direct translation is "inquisatorial"; and I HAVE studied law and find the whole thing fascinating.

I think the flaw (and there are many on our side) is the emphasis on the importance of the opinion of the juge d'instruction.

We also have an odd verdict here in Scotland. It's called "not proven" and derives from the days when the charge was found to be proven or not proven. However, it's commonly translated in modern parlance as meaning "you're guilty but we cannae prove it!"

I don't think the statement "The existing US system does offer the maximum protection for the innocent" means the writer says the US legal system is the best (anyone remember OJ?). It just says all reasonable protections to the accused are afford. Surely Clair, with his legal knowledge, can read it that way.

I don't know much about the French legal system, but I saw a movie about a man who was wrongly accused and sent to this awful island off the coast of South America, where the conditions were truly barbarous. In the end he escaped on a raft made of coconuts [shivers].

While true that you can not be tried for the same crime in the US you can be charged with a different charge and tried again. So double jeopardy does not make you immune from more persecution (prosecution). Anyone who thinks that the US judicial system is the best in the world should take a step back and look again at the evidence.

Sheila,

Actually, it's not rude at all to correct my english, but at the contrary very helpful.

As for the flaw you mentionned concerning the "juge d'instruction", it's indeed true, and the major issue is that it's the exact same person who issue the warrants, can send you to jail during the enquiry, etc... That's the reason the "juges d'instruction" are nicknamed "the most powerful men in France".

Of course, this issue could be solved by having a different judge issuing the warrants, or at least other judges reviewing his decisions, but such proposals had been rejected plainly because they would cost too much money.

Yawn Boring..great screenname!! Those who live HERE in the state of Louisiana are quite familiar with the Code Napoleon upon which their state laws are based.
What any of this has to do with travel I am not certain unless someone is planning to go to France (or Louisiana) and break the laws. But I suppose this is better than the usual shouting match that erupts whem people post "political" statements here and all the self-righteous rise up and treat us to one of their lectures about what is and is not appropriate on this board!

Re: quote from smueller: "The existing US system does offer the maximum protection for the innocent, but it also provides abundant opportunity for exploitation (by almost limitless appeals) by the guilty."

Except, it would seem, for capital cases where the sentence, once enacted, allows no further appeal with gravest finality.

I give thanks that in the UK we allow ourselves the possibility of error.... God knows we have had need of it, and regularly do - hardly a month goes by without a high profile case being overturned; even today a woman convicted of double infanticide walked free after 18 months in prison - for the crime of suffering the terrible tragedy of cot death not once, not twice but three times.
I suspect in Texas or Florida that walk today out of the court might have been denied her by the due process of law.

Dr D.

Sorry, Dr Dogood, but there are NUMEROUS appeals following a death sentence, which does not occur for years after the sentencing.

I do expect (or hope) that the margin of error is radically reduced with the introduction of dna testing wherever it can be applied in the crime investigation process.

Apparently &quot;secularism&quot; is mandated by the French constitution, so a French court just ruled that Muslim woman may <b>not</b> wear head scarves and such in public schools and elsewhere. A bit of a Big Brother type reach into people's personal lives, wouldn't you say?

Hi smeuller,

A very good idea. However, the 5th point of the Bill of Rights provides that &quot;...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb&quot;, so that your suggestion would require a change to the Constitution.

Clairobscur,
Thanks for a very interesting lesson.

Sheila,

I have always been fond of the &quot;not proven&quot; verdict.

The secularism of the French Constitution is just the same as your own, you know- separation of state and church.

And it's recommendation from a commission to Parliament, not a court decree.

And it's religious symbols in public schools not headscarves &quot;elsewhere&quot; (although it was the headscarves issue that triggered the debate).

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story