NCJ Number
34035
Journal
UCLA Law Review Volume: 23 Issue: 1 Dated: (OCTOBER 1975) Pages: 1-56
Date Published
1975
Length
56 pages
Annotation
THIS ARTICLE ANALYZES THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETAL INTERESTS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AFFECTED BY DIFFERENT CHARGING SYSTEMS.
Abstract
THE DESIGNS OF THREE DIFFERENT MODELS - BASED ON THE ACTUAL CHARGE DECISION SYSTEMS USED IN MANHATTAN, LOS ANGELES, AND TEL AVIV - ARE DESCRIBED AND COMPARED, AND THE TYPICAL COMPONENTS AND IMPORTANT VARIATIONS IN DESIGN ARE DISCUSSED. (THE MANHATTAN MODEL REQUIRES A PROSECUTORIAL CHARGE DECISION WITHIN A FEW HOURS AFTER ARREST; A VERY LIMITED POST-ARREST INVESTIGATION, IF ANY, IS CONDUCTED. THE FIRST JUDICIAL APPEARANCE OF THE ACCUSED OCCURS WITHIN HOURS, AND THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND GRAND JURY STAGES FOLLOW WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. THE L.A. CENTRAL MODEL DELAYS THE CHARGING DECISION (AND THUS THE FIRST JUDICIAL APPEARANCE) FOR AT LEAST A DAY OR TWO AFTER THE ARREST IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE MORE THOROUGHLY. THUS THE CHARGE DECISION AND THE FIRST JUDICIAL APPEARANCE RARELY OCCUR ON THE SECOND DAY AND ARE SOMETIMES DELAYED UNTIL THE THIRD DAY OR LATER. UNDER THE TEL AVIV MODEL, THE ISSUANCE OF A CHARGE NEED NOT PRECEDE THE FIRST COURT APPEARANCE OF THE SUSPECT. THE CHARGE IS NOT TIED TO THAT APPEARANCE AND DOES NOT DELAY IT. THE TIME REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRST COURT APPEARANCE OF THE SUSPECT IS SIMILAR UNDER BOTH THE TEL AVIV AND L.A. CENTRAL MODELS, VIZ., WITHIN 48 HOURS.) IN ADDITION, THE VARIOUS INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY IN THE MAKING OF A PROMPT CHARGE DECISION ARE EXPLORED; THE LIKELY TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN THE QUALITY AND THE PROMPTNESS OF DECEISIONS ARE DISCUSSED; AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE TIMING - QUALITY DILEMMA ARE CONSIDERED. JUDICIAL APPROACHES TO THE PROMPTNESS AND QUALITY REQUIREMENTS (I.E. RELATING TO DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL) ARE PRESENTED AND THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME NEW DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENTS (SUCH AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN EARLY CHARGE) IS SUGGESTED. ALSO REVIEWED ARE MISCELLANEOUS OTHER COMPONENTS OF CHARGE DECISION SYSTEMS AND THEIR RELATION TO OTHER INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS. INCLUDED ARE WITNESS/POLICE OFFICER PARTICIPATION IN THE DECISIONAL PROCESS, SEPARATION OF FELONIES FROM MISDEMEANORS, THE QUALIFICATIONS AND SELECTION OF THE DECIDING PROSECUTOR, AN ADVERSARY SETTING, A MULTI-TRACK SYSTEM FOR DIFFERENT CASES, EXTERNAL QUALITY CHECKS, AND PARAPROFESSIONAL DECISIONMAKERS. THE PROBLEM OF MEASURING CHARGE DECISION QUALTIY IS ALSO EXAMINED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT) (SNI ABSTRACT)