I have noticed that the Russian soldier has been placed in a Fiberglass enclosure during the trial. If I recall correctly the Russians use an enclosure with bars. Other than security are there any other particular reasons for this? To me it almost signals guilt of the defendant.

Protection - it works both way - of the defendant and of the court staff

Escape prevention

Rescue attempts.

I agree, it undermines the presumption of innocence. I know also in the UK, New Zealand, and I think even Canada the defendant sits in a dock separated from his counsel. He is also surrounded by fiberglass or even a cage. I'm glad we don't have this practice in the US.

Innocent until proven guilty here.

Russia... Yeah, not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Innocent until proven guilty here.

Russia... Yeah, not so much.

Under the Russian constitution, the defendant is also innocent until proven guilty.

But yeah, a Russian courtroom is probably one of the last places I want to be.

A somewhat related story...

At the local county court the jury sits directly in front of but a little lower than the judge, in swivel chairs.

The witness booth sits about ten feet out directly centered in front of, facing, the jury and judge. It is elevated a couple steps high and enclosed about chest high on three sides but open on the front, toward the jury and judge. So the witness is sitting directly in front of and facing the jury and judge. Got that picture?

Several years ago a "lady" witness testified in a trial... In a very short skirt... with nothing underneath

The next day my Contractor dad was called by the county judge to build and install a door to the witness booth.

That was probably 40 or so years ago and the door is still there, and still in use.

quote:

That was probably 40 or so years ago and the door is still there, and still in use.

....so much for those open & shut cases we've heard about

It’s actually “not guilty” until proved guilty, not “innocent.” Innocent as most people understand it means “didn’t do it” or something similar such as an unavoidable accident. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt can be due to things like insufficient evidence, jury bias or incompetence (e.g., cannot understand the evidence), judge’s ruling, etc., but not necessarily that the defendant didn’t commit the act that was charged. This is a common misconception and something Vincent Bugliosi pointed out in one of his books or articles (don’t remember now where I read it).

I once observed a trial in which the charge was rape and the defendant had admitted to picking up the woman, driving her to a secluded location, and threatening her with a knife to have sex with him. She did and then immediately reported the incident to the German police who referred the case to Army CID.

The defense was “She would have consented anyway even if he hadn’t threatened her with the knife in a remote location far from any possible help or hope of escape.” The prosecutor was the most incompetent I’d ever seen, something the other CID agent also present agreed with. Despite an earlier JAG ruling that the victim’s morals, character, etc. in such cases must not be attacked in court, that’s exactly what the defense did with no objection by the judge or prosecutor. One of the telling accusations against the woman was that she had a tattoo!! on her arm. (Horrified gasps.)

The outcome was that the “She’s a slut and would have consented anyway” defense was accepted and the defendant was found not guilty (but not “innocent”) of rape by the jury.

Whether our defendants sit at a table rather than in a dock, nearly all of them (except those who have been out on bail) are leg shackled and handcuffed (and have a CO or Deputy sitting behind them) until a judge directs that their restraints be removed.

Quite few appear in jail jumpsuits as well, so I don't see there's much difference.

More of an issue is the fact that most jurors are fully aware of who the defendant is (because they are neighbors, especially in small towns) and the press (if it's a serious or heinous crime) has been trying them in the court of public opinion for weeks if not months beforehand.

In Europe, or at least the UK, there are restrictions about what may, and may not, be reported on prior to, and during the trail to try and avoid tainting a verdict. A few reporters/journalists/editors have found themselves standing 'Tall before The Man' for contravening the rules.

No Nancy Graces allowed.

Also remember, these proceedings are being conducted in a country that is in the middle of a war and the local populace is likely very unhappy with the country and actions the defendant represents.
I suspect this proceeding, and it's timing, is meant as a statement to others in the Russian military and government that if you don't outright win this, we will be coming for you too. Especially if you continue to act as barbarians.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
It’s actually “not guilty” until proved guilty, not “innocent.”

It is a presumption of innocence during trial; not a presumption of not guilty.

quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:
A somewhat related story...

At the local county court the jury sits directly in front of but a little lower than the judge, in swivel chairs.

The witness booth sits ...

That was probably 40 or so years ago and the door is still there, and still in use.

Contrary to everyones most basic instinct.

the Russian soldiers, they earned it. I hope the war criminals are brought before a court, tried, and when found guilty, executed by immediate hanging.

The russian soldier charged with killing a civilian in Ukraine has pleaded guilty, and sentenced to a whole life term of imprisonment.

In a Ukrainian jail.

It will be interesting to see how that pans out.....

^^^^^^^^^^
Good. The Russians are rumbling about putting the captured Ukranians in Maripol on trial. I would not put it past that regime.