Judges Talking To Jurors in Criminal Cases: Why U.S. Judges Do It So Differently From Just About Everyone Else
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada, a ten-minute drive of a mere 3.28 kilometers. 4 She is not at all concerned about going beyond the giving of jury instructions.In fact, if she does not, she is likely to be reversed on appeal, perhaps even disciplined.And, it is not just that judge in Windsor.A judge in Auckland, one in London, one in Sydney, each would feel no hesitation going beyond a statement of the law and would likely be obliged to do so.Why the difference between U.S. judges and judges from other common law based nations, with similar roots in the English criminal justice system?After sitting through trials in several different nations over the past few decades, that became a nagging question for me.Are Americans really that different from their English-speaking cousins on this point? 5What explains that difference?And which nation gets it right?Those are the questions I intend to answer in this article.To do so, I take an unconventional approach.Of course, I will briefly discuss the well-established legal principles one finds in cases, statutes, and rules in the five focal nations of Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States.In my research, however, I sought to go beyond this, to find out the way in which the practice really occurs.In short, I was trying to determine whether the trial judges truly acted so very differently in the various nations.I was in touch with more than eighty individuals in these five nations. 6Most I knew; all were experienced in the world of criminal justice, as trial or appeals 4. 2.04 miles.5.This is not the only point involving criminal procedure where the common law nations differ.Sharp contrasts can be drawn regarding the role and accessibility of the jury in the criminal trial, rules of exclusion, protections against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, sentencing, and open proceedings.I have-with my friend and colleague Professor Vicki Waye-twice before addressed such points in looking at Australia and the United States.See generally
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it