U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Alternatives to the Present System of Trial De Novo in Criminal Cases - Final Report of the Special Committee on Trial De Novo to the Chief Justice of the District Courts

NCJ Number
69985
Author(s)
Anonymous
Date Published
1976
Length
78 pages
Annotation
Committee recommendations regarding alternatives to present trial de novo practices in Massachusetts are discussed; three options are explored, and the need to eliminate the procedure is emphasized.
Abstract
After analyzing the effect of trial de novo on law enforcement, defendants' rights, and the quality of justice in the courts, the committee concluded in 1976 that 'elimination of trial de novo is necessary as a matter of public policy.' Three alternatives are presented to the present system. First, any defendant convicted in a district court would have the right to a de novo retrial only in a district court before a six-member jury. Second, any defendant charged with a crime within district court final jurisdiction could choose an initial trial before a district court jury of six or before, with appeals available only on issues of law, or an initial trial either before a judge with a right to a de novo district court retrial before a jury of six. The third option is that any defendant charged with a crime within district court final jurisdiction could choose a trial before either a district court jury of six or before a judge, with appeals available only on issues of law. The committee concludes that resources in the form of judge availability are insufficient to allow for the creation of a system of first instance jury trials in the district court system at present, at least in acceptable form. Therefore, the committee proposes that the three options described be adopted through a step-by-step approach, i.e., implementation of option one, then option two, and finally option three. Each step would require an expansion of the existing six-member jury capacity and would provide experience as a basis for moving to the next progression. The present trial de novo system would thus be phased out gradually over a reasonable period of time. Footnotes and nine appendixes describing related legislation and option analysis are included in the report.

Downloads

No download available

Availability