Miscellaneous desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 11

The right to cross-examine your alleged victims?

In the US, television would have me believe that defendants may choose to represent themselves rather than having a lawyer do so. Does this apply in serious criminal cases such as rape/battery/attempted murder? Could someone accused of rape be in a position of questioning their purported victim on the stand?

(Caveat: not looking for legal advice (!) Question motivated solely by interest, replies by informed laypeople welcomed). Thanks, 83.70.226.11 (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Confrontation Clause and Rape shield#In the United States of America. Marnanel (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, you are always permitted to represent yourself in court. It is written into the constitution. In the case of serious charges, it would be a bad idea to represent yourself, but you are permitted. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As they say—a man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client. Nevertheless, it is generally held that the right of a defendant to mount his own defense is nearly absolute. (Narrow exceptions exist, for example where the defendant's mental competence is at issue.) Occasionally you'll hear about cases like this one, where a sex-crime defendant does defend himself, and the case is followed by a jump by state lawmakers to bar the practice in the future. It is obvious that the constitutional issues are very sensitive, and it is not clear that such laws, if passed, would survive a constitutional challenge. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, this 2002 news article "New rape law 'will protect victims'" is about The Sexual Offences (Procedures and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 which brought Scotland into line with the rest of the UK in banning this practice. This was the case that prompted it. In England and Wales, it was banned by part of The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was from memory a rape case in NZ sometime in the last 9 years were controversy arose over the suspect questioning the victim although I believe the suspect was found guilty. This and probably other cases did lead to the introduction of rape shield laws which require the judge's permission to ask questions about an alleged victim's sexual past but AFAIK there's still no restrictions on an accused representing themself in a rape case and while there have been issues raised on strengthening the shield laws and surrounding definitions of rape and consent [2] [3] and even suggestions on moving to an inquisitorial system, I haven't heard of any more suggestions to specifically remove the right for the accused to question the accuser/victim (or represent themselves) in a rape case. Edit: Finally found it after a lot of searching here [4] [5] [6] although interesting enough it seems he eventually won the right to a retrial [7] as he was suffering mental health issues at the time and even the jury expressed concern his behaviour wasn't helping his case (somewhat supporting the person who represents himself has an idiot for a client idea and similar to Trovatore's case below) so probably he shouldn't have been representing himself. I can't find any info on whether the retrial happened. BTW another notable thing is perhaps that lot of the examples seem to be cases where the person had a lawyer but then had a falling out. On a personal note I suspect some people find it easier to confront the person who raped them when they badger them in court and ask them uncomfortable questions then they do a random person. Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The judge typically has to decide if the person is competent to act as their own lawyer, meaning they are generally competent and have a law background. Someone who has been in prison for years and studied law while there might qualify. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on this kind of law, but I don't think there's usually any kind of requirement that someone have a law background. In fact, as long as someone's competent mentally, "law background" has nothing to do with this question. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on, as Marnanel said, the Confrontation Clause assures this right, whether it's the lawyer or the accused as the attorney doing the questioning. Rape shield laws deal with procedural issues, but the fundamental question of whether or not testimony is required is a basic Constitutional issue. It cannot be subverted by legislation. That would require a Constitutional amendment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caryl Chessman did this. I gather it backfired on him, as he asked the woman about "the person who did this" or some such, and she repeatedly answered his questions with "you" did such and such. He might have stayed out of the gas chamber if he hadn't handled the trial so badly. --Trovatore (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, will you kindly stop pulling answers out of your ass? Do you have a reference for any of that? Nobody wants to hear about "The way it oughta be if StuRat was in charge!" Our articles on that topic don't say anything about having to pass any standards, except for a few minor restrictions on particular circumstances (such as the rape shield being discussed, corporations under trial and so on). Matt Deres (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, will you kindly stop being so abusive ? Here's a quote to support my statement: "...you have to convince the judge that you understand what it means to go to trial without a lawyer and that you're capable or "competent" to represent yourself" [8]. I believe that being found "competent" to represent yourself, to at least some judges in some states, requires at least a minimal knowledge of the law. StuRat (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give above says this: "Once you tell the judge that you'd like to act pro se, the judge will likely hold a hearing where you'll have to answer some questions. The purpose of the hearing is to make sure that you understand exactly what you're asking for. When you want to represent yourself you are, in effect, waiving or giving up your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. And that's a big deal. The courts need to make sure that criminal trials are fair. So, the judge needs to make sure that you're making a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver. In other words, you have to convince the judge that you understand what it means to go to trial without a lawyer and that you're capable or "competent" to represent yourself. As a general rule, the judge can't let you represent yourself if he doesn't think you're competent to do so. Sometimes, if the judge has doubts about a defendant's competence, he'll appoint an attorney to protect the defendant's rights until competency can be determined. This may involve requiring the defendant to undergo a psychological or other health-related evaluation." Emphasis added. It's entirely about you giving informed consent to the matter; it has nothing whatsoever to do with you having any experience with the law or being in a courtroom or anything, even if you try to weasel in a "some people, somewhere" caveat. Matt Deres (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't weasel out of it saying "you have to convince the judge that you understand what it means to go to trial without a lawyer and that you're capable or "competent" to represent yourself". These are two separate things, hence the "and". You pretend like they are not. If you find a source that says that judges are legally excluded from using a defendant's knowledge of the law in their determination of competence to self-represent, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, stop your complaining. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to back it up. Check out Faretta v. California for the SCOTUS decision that held that defendants had a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. Don't just read the article, check out the actual decision here where the opinion of the court goes into detail about how widespread it was and is for courts in the US to affirm that right, including the fact the George Washington himself said '"in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of... counsel." The right is currently codified in 28 U.S.C. 1654.' If you think that saying my being unable to prove that no judge anywhere in the US has ever tried to deny the right of pro se gives you some kind of point, you are sadly mistaken. You make great contributions here, but you need to recognize when you've been caught making stuff up and gracefully withdraw your assertion. Matt Deres (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are also making a claim, but refuse to provide any proof. Your links only show that a pro se defense exists, which was never in dispute. My link showed that it is limited. StuRat (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you're either not reading the links or don't understand them. Faretta v. California explicitly says that the right of pro se is guaranteed by the Constitution. Guaranteed. Any judge that flouted that would soon find himself on the streets. As I've tried to explain to you, the limits involve people who are unable to giving reasoned consent; it exists as a safeguard against the stupid and retarded throwing away their right to counsel. And again, you shift the goalposts. First it was "The judge typically has to decide if the person is competent to act as their own lawyer, meaning they are generally competent and have a law background." and then it was "...some judges in some states, requires at least a minimal knowledge of the law" and now we're down to "My link showed that it is limited." Sure, in the exact sense that I said it was limited all along - by the ability to give reasoned consent. I've backed up my assertion with a decision from SCOTUS. Shadowjams and I both called you on your assertion and in response all you've given is a set of goals that shift back every time you post. Frankly, I'm sick of talking to someone who won't argue in good faith. Matt Deres (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody was arguing that it wasn't guaranteed by the Constitution, that's just a red herring you introduced. You've yet to provide one shred of proof of your assertion that judges are excluded from considering a lack of legal knowledge a disqualifying factor, so I'm quite sick of talking with you. StuRat (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little art drawn onto PCBs

I'm trying to find this on Google (I've seen the site for it, so I KNOW it exists), but can't come up with the right set of search terms. I'm trying to look up those little pieces of art snuck onto PCBs by the designers. I don't mean the way the circuit traces are laid out, but some commercially produced boards have little drawings on them of miscellaneous objects (I've seen a castle, dog and a car personally). Does anyone know the term for these pieces of art or where to look online to see more of them? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Chip art? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That usually refers to just the microscopic stuff on microchips. I think 76.117 is more looking for visible stuff on circuit boards. Usually on the silk-screen layer, but sometimes even on the metal layer. I don't know if there's an official word for it, but I've just seen them called "hardware easter eggs" [9]

APL (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you both. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Legal

I have been watching Judge Judy on TV, and so this would relate to the US but as I am resident in the UK I would be interested in this jurisdiction too. One person is suing another on Judge Judy for one reason or another. They are both ‘’trailer trash’’ and are both unemployed, both have substance abuse problems, and criminal records. So, Man A has Zero money and looses the case. The Judge orders him to pay Man B, £/$ 1000. He does not have this money, how is the situation resolved? Does the bank give him an overdraft? Does Man B have to wait for instalments? Or for an indefinite period of time until he has the money? Does the government foot the bill and take it out of his taxes or unemployment benefit? Please can this be explained. I am just curious, this is not a legal advice question. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is typical for these mock-court reality shows, both parties are paid out of funds provided by the show's producers. See Judge Judy#Structure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, remember that Judge Judy is not a real court. Their orders are not legally binding. But in general, if you are ordered to pay something by the court that you do not have, there are various ways that they can try to get the money from you, i.e. by garnishing wages, seizing assets, etc. The court can order a payment plan according to the defendant's financial situation. Failure to pay can result in being found in contempt of court, I believe. Perhaps others can elucidate the various options better. The government does not foot the bill. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the outcomes of these pseudo-trial television shows (including Judge Judy and its much less obnoxious predecessor, The People's Court) are very much legally binding. These shows are a particularly silly and unpleasant form of binding arbitration; the parties will have a contractual obligation to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. Courts in the U.S. are extremely reluctant to interfere with binding arbitration decisions, and usually only do so in the event of serious fraud or malfeasance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, essentially, before the show everyone signs a contract that they'll accept the judge's ruling. Any part of the judgement not covered by the show is like any other debt.

Particularly interesting is the time Judge Judy actually assigned child custody on the show. If I recall that was even a cliff-hanger episode! She had to have realized that she was way overstepping her authority as an arbiter/tv-judge. I they just decided it would be good TV so do it anyway. APL (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention Judge Judy#Criticisms, which discusses how that custody decision was overturned by a real court on two grounds. First, as a matter of public policy, arbitrators cannot decide custody questions; second, even if such an issue could be decided by binding arbitration, custody was not covered by the parties' agreement to arbitrate and would have been out of bounds for Judy to decide. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also mentions how as a former family court judge she must have known she was overstepping (as APL pointed out she should have in general) Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about what would actually happen were this not a TV show, but just a poor person losing an actual case. In England and Wales that's a County Court Judgment; it's much the same kind of idea in comparable jurisdictions. That means a court says that A has to pay. He has a period of time in which to pay; how long varies, but it's often a month or so, and sometimes A can petition the court for longer. Or A and B can work out a payment plan. But if they don't, and A doesn't pay, then B has to use some form of judgement recovery (he can't just go to A's trailer and take goods to the value). In England he might use a County Court Bailiff and in Scotland a Sheriff officer. Armed with the judgement (and in some places a further court order giving them permission to seize), these guys can seize some of A's property, sell it (in Scotland that sale was called a Warrant sale), take a cut to pay their own fees, and give the rest to B. It's a bad deal for A, because they don't get much for A's old stuff (and often they don't try to get a good price). Most jurisdictions set a bunch of limits on how such officers can operate, and limit what they can take (sometimes they can't take necessities like beds and cookware, or the means of someone's livelihood like tools) - they're mostly looking for stuff like jewellery and electronics, which are portable luxuries with some resale value. In your question, if A really is poor, then this might not work - A just doesn't have enough stuff that can be sold to pay B, and the costs of the seizing and selling and all the visits to court. Another strategy B can try is to "attach" A's wages (also called "garnish" them), which means another court order makes A's employer keep back some of A's salary and give it to B (again, most jurisdictions allow A to keep enough to pay his basic bills; B can't starve A to get his money). If A is receiving government assistance already (the idea of which is that it only pays A just enough anyway) then there's little for B to garnish (B can always try to get a court to garnish benefits, but he won't get much each week, even if the court agrees). People in A's position are often described as "litigation proof", meaning they're so poor that there's no point in suing them. Lots of the cases in programmes like Judge Judy are for trivial sums owed between such unlitigables, which (were it not for the show) wouldn't end up in court. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the source of the cases and the concept of 'litigation-proof' parties, it's worth noting that these television programs (including Judge Judy) recruit from real cases filed in real small claims courts. In other words, the individuals involved had already made the decision – ill-conceived or not – to pursue their cases pro se in open court. I suppose it's possible that some of them just wanted to get a judgement for the principle of the matter and weren't expecting to collect, but sometimes it's remarkable just how much blood one can squeeze from a stone. Remember that the maximum judgement in these small claims' courts is just $5000, and many of the claims are significantly less than that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called judgment proof and it refers to a large portion of collection cases in probably most jurisdictions. Garnishment is the most favorable option, but if people never make enough you'll never collect. Squeezing blood from a turnip yields little. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]