|
:''For the unrelated 1976 abortion funding amendment, see Hyde Amendment.'' The Hyde Amendment (Pub.L. 105-119, § 617, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2519, codified as a note following 18 U.S.C. § 3006A) is a federal statute allowing federal courts to award attorneys' fees and court costs to criminal defendants "where the court finds that the position of the United States was 'vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.'"〔Shackford, Scott (2012-11-14) (Supreme Court Declines to Tackle Prosecutorial Misconduct Case ), ''Reason''〕 In such cases, the federal court may allow victims to recover some of the costs they incurred in fighting the government's investigation and prosecution by authorizing an award of attorneys' fees and court costs to a criminal defendant when the prosecution's evidence is so baseless as to be "frivolous." Compensation awarded under this statute would come out of the budget of the specific federal agency involved, typically the United States Attorney's Office. The measure was introduced by Representative Henry Hyde (Republican-Illinois) as a rider to an appropriation bill and worked into the final 1997 Department of Justice bill by the United States Congress. The Justice Department was intensely opposed to the statute.〔McCoy, Kevin and Heath, Brad (2010-09-28) (Not guilty, but stuck with big bills, damaged career ), ''USA Today''〕 ==Need for restraint== Prosecutorial abuse in the United States Attorneys Office has become a growing problem as pressure to crack down on crime has increased. At the same time, maintaining sufficient oversight of the practices and ethics of the Justice Department has become increasingly difficult for Congress, the press, and the courts. Criminal defense attorneys are especially vulnerable to "bad faith" prosecutions and the burden these place on the vindicated defendant. Most prosecutors are elected officials, although this is not true of federal prosecutors, whose conduct is subject to the Hyde Amendment. The decision to file charges can be affected by public opinion or politically powerful groups. If prosecutors do not carefully screen the cases chosen to pursue, individuals may be charged when there is insufficient evidence. More and more, the high public profile of the suspect or the sensational nature of the crime may have more bearing on the charging decision than the weight of the evidence or the nature of the crime.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Report of Commission to Reform The Federal Grand Jury ) 〕 Even under the Hyde Amendment, it is an acquitted defendant's responsibility to prove that the prosecutor acted in bad faith or that the case was frivolous. In ''U.S. v. Mary Louise Denese Slaey'', the government dropped all counts on August 2, 2006, but further review of her case was continuing elsewhere, and she was not notified of the dismissal of the further review until February 2007. Slaey filed for legal reimbursement on April 3, 2007; her request was dismissed on April 25, 2007 because the August 2006 motion ended the issue from the court's point of view so her motion was dismissed as "out of time" (more than 30 days after the dismissal).〔 〕 A 2010 investigation by ''USA Today'' "found the law has left innocent people... coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases."〔 The investigation "documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Yet ''USA TODAY'' found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded."〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hyde Amendment (1997)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|