|
Jordan Procedures in Criminal Law
When the police believed that a person had committed a crime or
when someone was caught committing a criminal act, the suspect was
taken to the nearest police station for registration and
interrogation. Usually a warrant was required for an arrest;
however, in cases where delay would be harmful or when a person was
apprehended in a criminal offense, the accused could be detained
without a warrant of arrest for as long as forty-eight hours. After
forty-eight hours, a court order was required to continue detention
of the suspect.
A warrant of arrest could be issued by a magistrate only if
there was a presumption that the person had committed the offense
for which he or she was charged and if there was reason to believe
that the accused intended to escape, destroy traces of the crime,
or induce witnesses to make false statements. A warrant also could
be issued for offenses against national security or other grave
acts specified in the criminal code.
The police magistrate first informed the accused of the charges
and questioned the accused and any available witnesses to determine
if there was a prima facie case against the detained person, who
had the right to counsel at this preliminary investigation. If the
magistrate found evidence of guilt, the case was transmitted to the
local prosecutor for further investigation. A prosecutor was
attached to every magistrate's court and court of first instance
(see Jordan - The Judiciary
, ch. 4). The magistrate then could either issue
an arrest warrant to bind over the suspect for trial or release the
suspect on bail. Release on bail was a matter of right when the
maximum penalty prescribed for the offense was imprisonment not
exceeding one year and where the accused had an established
residence within the country and had not previously been convicted
of a felony or sentenced to more than three months in jail.
The right of habeas corpus was provided for under the
Constitution, but in practice it had not afforded the same
protection as in English common law. The police usually managed to
establish the need to detain suspects charged with serious
offenses. Persons could be detained pending investigation for
fifteen days or longer if the court approved a request by the
public prosecutor for an extension. The power of detention had been
used effectively by the police to forestall disorder. For example,
police occasionally dispersed crowds before a disturbance merely by
threatening to arrest those who disobeyed an order to leave the
scene.
On deciding that legal action against the accused was
necessary, the public prosecutor instituted a trial by issuing an
indictment to the appropriate court. The fourteen magistrates'
courts handled only those criminal offenses for which the maximum
fine was not more than JD100 or the maximum prison sentence was not
more than one year. The seven courts of first instance tried cases
involving misdemeanors before two judges and major felonies before
three judges. Trials were open to the public except in certain
cases, such as those involving sexual offenses. The defendant had
the right to legal counsel, but defendants often were unaware of
this right and failed to exercise it. The court appointed a lawyer
for those who could not afford one if the potential sentence was
execution or life imprisonment. Defendants had the right of
cross-examination and were protected against self-incrimination.
There was no jury system in Jordan. The judge, therefore, decided
questions of fact, based entirely on the weight of the evidence, as
well as questions of the interpretation and application of the
criminal law.
Trials began with opening statements by the prosecutor and the
defense counsel, followed by an interrogation of the defendant by
the presiding judge. After examination of witnesses for the state
and for the accused and the submission of documentary evidence,
closing arguments by the prosecutor and defense counsel completed
the presentation. Decisions were announced in open court and, if
the defendant were found guilty, sentence would be pronounced.
Either the public prosecutor or the defendant could appeal the
decision to the court of appeal and, ultimately, to the Court of
Cassation.
Data as of December 1989
|
