Giudice popolare senza aver fatto domanda
Jury trial pros and cons
that it has stoked. However, if we make the exercise of observing how the verb “to interpret” is used, we will realize that we all have a more or less clear idea of the activity carried out by the subject who performs the action. In fact, if it is a judge, he must compare the facts, presented and proven in the process, with the factual assumptions of the normative texts in order to apply the sanction.
the activities carried out by these two subjects. Judges and lawyers receive more or less the same university education, read the same books and rely on the same legal texts. In addition, to a greater or lesser extent, we all have access to the documents they draft. In short, the actions they take when we say they “interpret” are by no means hidden or mysterious, but, on the contrary, they are readily apparent in the documents they write.
That being the case, why do jurists continue to argue so heatedly about what it means to “interpret”? To proceed with our analysis, let us leave aside the lawyer’s activity and focus on
A jury, sometimes called a jury, is a collegial body of persons who are not judges, specially formed to make a judicial decision, called a judgment or verdict, in a particular case. Ordinarily a jury is formed to decide on the guilt or innocence of a person, but there are also juries that rule on other issues, such as the grand jury whose function is limited to indicting a person for trial.
A hung jury is made up of laypersons and technical magistrates, all of whom constitute a collegiate body in charge of all the controversial stages of the judicial procedure: the oral trial, guilt or acquittal and the establishment of the penalty, as well as possible civil liability. In this system, the fact prosecuted and the law are not dissociated. Decisions are taken by majority vote, so that all aspects of the trial remain within the competence of the court composed of technical and lay judges.
El objetivo del artículo es reflexionar sobre la carga dinámica de la prueba y la iniciativa probatoria del juez en el marco de la acción popular como figura a través de la cual, eventualmente, se puede lograr la protección de los derechos colectivos. La metodología empleada se basó en la revisión documental y jurisprudencial. Uno de los logros del artículo fue la prevalencia de los derechos colectivos sobre la ritualidad probatoria. Así, determina que si bien el demandante debe aportar la carga de la prueba, también es cierto que el juez debe considerar los objetivos de las acciones públicas constitucionales hacia la protección real de los derechos, lo que eventualmente implicará el despliegue de sus facultades oficiosas en la materia. La conclusión principal se refiere a que la parte actora tiene la carga de la prueba en las demandas populares hacia la demostración de los hechos afirmados, pero destaca el hecho de que, en el caso concreto, la carga de la prueba puede ser distribuida por diferentes razones. Asimismo, el juez se encuentra adelantando su deber oficioso de decretar y practicar excepcionalmente pruebas para procurar la tutela judicial efectiva sin suplir las deficiencias probatorias por falta de diligencia de las partes.
