|
The silent witness rule is the use of 'substitutions' when referring to sensitive information in the United States open courtroom jury trial system. The phrase was first used in US v. Zettl, in 1987.〔 An example of a substitution method is the use of code-words on a 'key card', to which witnesses and the jury would refer during the trial, but which the public would not have access to. The rule is an evidentiary doctrine that tries to balance the state secrets privilege with the bill of rights (especially the right of the accused to a public trial, and the right to due process). In practice the rule has been rarely used and often challenged by judges and civil rights advocates. Its use remains controversial.〔 == Background == The conflict between the open court and state secrets privilege goes back to at least 1802 and Marbury v. Madison. Under the privilege, the government can dismiss any charges against it by claiming that important state secrets would be revealed at trial. In 1980 the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) was passed as an attempt to deal with the conflict, especially the problem of graymail. The Silent Witness Rule (SWR) is a further attempt.〔 By 2011 the government had only attempted to use the rule a handful of times, often unsuccessfully:〔 *United States v. Zettl 1987 (court approved, but not used due to interlocutory appeal)〔 *United States v. Oliver North 1990 (court rejected the idea)〔 *United States v. Fernandez 1990 (court rejected the idea)〔 *United States v. John Walker Lindh 2001.〔 The government planned to use the rule to protect the identities of US military personnel. The case never went to trial because Lindh made a plea bargain.〔 *United States v. Ahmed Abu Ali 2005.〔 The jury was given the full evidence, while the defendant was given redacted evidence. The Fourth Circuit later ruled this unconstitutional, a violation of the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause.〔 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「Silent witness rule」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|