Fair trial

In much of the world, all people are legally guaranteed a fair trial. A fair trial refers to a legal action in which a person accused of a crime or other misdeed is treated fairly and afforded various protections. Exact definitions of a fair trial may vary. However, in the twenty-first century, fair trials are typically characterized by prompt, public hearings overseen by judges and/or juries who are impartial and free of outside influence.

Brief History

For thousands of years, people have sought ways to settle disagreements and handle accusations of criminal behavior. In early societies, a king or judge might perform these tasks quickly and subjectively. An accused person would likely have little or no recourse against the decisions of authorities and might face any manner of punishment regardless of actual guilt.

Over time, many societies developed a practice called a trial. In a typical trial, two parties explain their positions. The accusing party explains grievances and the accused party offers some defense against the charges. Until medieval times, this process normally took place before a judge or other singular authority figure whose ruling was final.

A major step toward modern legal and justice systems came in the Magna Carta, the breakthrough document signed by England’s King John in 1215 that offered limited, yet unprecedented, rights and protections to regular citizens. The Magna Carta addressed the problem of kings and other singular authorities having too much power over the legal system, leaving regular people—including those accused of crimes and facing potentially major punishments—little hope for fair justice.

The Magna Carta stated: “No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

With this clause, the Magna Carta legally instituted the concept of the trial by jury, with a jury being a group of peers, or average citizens who were similar to the person accused of the crime in terms of social status. Although this step may seem basic in modern times, when jury trials are an almost universal standard that many people take for granted, this part of the Magna Carta revolutionized judicial practice.

Overview

In the centuries following 1215, many countries, notably the United States, drew from the Magna Carta’s protections of accused people and expanded greatly upon them. In crafting a new democratic government, the founders of the United States held the right to a jury trial as being crucial to human freedom. They believed that a sufficiently empowered jury would be able to overcome the pressure of leaders and demands of unjust laws to determine the fairest manner of settling a dispute.

This belief was codified in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution. This amendment states: “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Each trial is to be decided by “an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” The accused person is informed about the accusation and listens to any witnesses involved. In addition, the amendment assures that accused may present their own witnesses and find their own defense attorneys. The Seventh Amendment continued the same theme by guaranteeing trial by jury for both civil and criminal cases.

These amendments were major steps toward the universal guarantee of fair trials. However, they were still tested and expanded upon over time. One concern with the Constitutional protections was that, while they allowed accused parties to find assistance for their defense, they assumed that the accused would locate, hire, and compensate this defense. However, many people accused of crimes did not have the knowledge or money to find a competent lawyer.

This situation was revisited in the 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright. Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of burglary in Florida and asked the court to provide counsel as he could not afford to do so. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that states must provide defense attorneys to accused people who cannot afford to hire them. This expanded upon and redefined understandings of what constituted a fair trial to support the idea that fair trials should be a universal right.

In 1948, the United Nations (UN) proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a list of thirty protections that signees believed to be basic, and all people deserved. Several articles relate to the rights of people accused of crimes. The article that is most influential to the protection of the right to a fair trial is Article 10, which states: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

In this phrasing, a tribunal refers to a court. This article requires that the tribunal be impartial and independent, meaning that it should be free of outside influences or attitudes that could create bias in its decisions. It should be fair-minded and consider both sides of a debate before rendering a judgment. The trial should also be public, meaning it cannot be carried out secretly. This enables outside observers to check to ensure that it is conducted fairly.

In 1950, a council of European leaders, guided by the UN’s declaration, created their own Convention on Human Rights geared specifically for Europe. In this document, Article 6 gives an in-depth description of the protections of the right to a fair trial. This used many of the prior definitions and guarantees but expanded upon others. For example, it balanced the public nature of the trial to protect moral codes, public order, and the privacy of juveniles involved.

The article states that all people charged with a crime are to be considered innocent until legal proof is shown that they are guilty. In addition, the article ensures that the accused must be informed promptly and clearly of the charges against them and provided help from an interpreter in multilingual cases.

The protection of the right to a fair trial is seen in countless cases around the world. One twenty-first-century example took place in Croatia, where Neđo Ajdarić was sentenced to forty years in prison on a charge of robbery and murder. This sentence was based solely on the testimony of a man who claimed to have heard Ajdarić discussing these crimes. In 2011, reevaluation of the case showed that Ajdarić had been denied a fair trial, which was then conducted and led to his release from prison.

Bibliography

“European Convention on Human Rights.” Council of Europe, www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention‗eng.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2023.

“Fair Trials.” The Washington Post, 9 Oct. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/constitutional/episode-08-fair-trials/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

“Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor: Trial by Jury.” Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/trial-by-jury.html. Accessed 13 June 2023.

“Right to a Fair Trial.” Council of Europe, 2023, www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/right-to-a-fair-trial. Accessed 13 June 2023.

“Sixth Amendment.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth‗amendment. Accessed 13 June 2023.

“Trial.” Offices of the United States Attorneys, www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/trial. Accessed 13 June 2023.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. Accessed 13 June 2023.