|
May, 2007
Title:
Comparing The Turkish Legal system from The American Legal system
Bar Association
Judges
Courts
Jury system
Legal Testimony
Cross- Examination
Seminar Leader/Lecturer:
Marshall M. Taheri
Student Name and e-mail:
Yasemin Gulluoglu
Yasemin.gulluoglu@stcl.edu
Word Count:
Date
19 May 2007
Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………….............................0
I. Bar Association
I- a: General………………….………………………………………………………...1
I-b: Turkish Legal Procedure………………………………………………..................1
I- c: American Legal Procedure…………….………………………………………….1
II. Judges
II-a: Judges in the USA………………………………………………………………...2
II-b: Judges in Turkey…………………………………………………………………3
III.Turkish Court System………………………………………………………4
III-a: General…………………… ………………………………...................................4
III-b: Judicial Courts …………………………………………………………………...4
III-c: Criminal Courts…………………………….……………………………………..4
III-d: Administrative Courts …………………………………………………………….5
III-e: State Security Courts………………………………………………………………5
III-d: Supreme Courts…………………………………………………………………...7
III-d-1. General ………………………………………………………………7
III-d-2 The Constitutional Court ……………………………………………..7
III-d-3. The Court of Appeals..………………………………………………...8
III-d-4. The Supreme Council of Public Accounts…………………………….9
III-d-5. The Supreme Military Court of Appeals……………………………....9
III-d-5.a. General……………………………………………………….9
III-d-5.b. The Supreme Military Court of Appeals………………..………….10
III-d-6. The Supreme Military Administrative Court ………............................11
III-d-7: The Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts………………….........................11
IV.American Court System………………………………………………….12
IV-a: General…………………………………………………………………12
IV-b : The United States Federal Courts……………………………………..12
IV-b-1. Supreme Court ………………………………………………...12
IV-b-1-a. ………………………………………………………13
IV-b-1-a.a.: …………………………………………….13
IV-b-1-a.b.: ………………….…....................................13.
IV-b-1-b: ……………………………………………………….13
IV-b-1-b.a.: ……………….….…………………………13
IV-b-1-b.b.: …………………………………………….13
IV-b-1-b.c.: ……………………………………………..14
IV-b-2: …………………………………………………………………14
IV-b-2-a : …………………………………….………………..14
IV-b-3: …………………………………………………..………………14
IV-b-4 …………………………………………………….……………..15
IV-b-5: …………………………………………………….……………..15
IV-b-5-a…………………………..……………….…………….15
V.Jury System……………………………………………………………….15
V-a: General ……………………………………………..………………………15
V-b: Grand Juries are Today ……….……………………………………………16
V-Legal Testimony………………………………………………….….17
V-a: General………………………………………………………….….17
VI- Cross- Examination…………………………………………………...19
VI- a: General ……………………………………………………………………19
VI-b: Cross-examination in Turkey ……………………………………………..21
. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………22
. INTRODUCTION
Turkish Legal System is based on Turkish Customary Law and some countries’ law
like Switzerland and Germany. The Turkish Legal System differs from the American Legal
System especially on the jury trial because the Turkish trial is done before one or three judges
but not a jury. Secondly, contrary to the American three years education, the law education in
Turkey lasts four years. Thirdly, everybody can be admitted to the desired bar, after the
graduation from a Turkish Faculty of Law and the execution of the legal one year trainning.
However, everybody who passes the bar exam can be admitted to the bar. And consequently,
we can mention about a similarity between the Turkish and the American Legal Systems:
Cross Interrogation. This new system of interrogation is excerpt from the American Law
System in 2005.
GNAT :Grand National Assembly of Turkey
SSC : The State Security Courts
ECHR : European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
I- BAR ASSOCIATION
I-a: General
Having a law degree and completing a one year internship program is mandatory to become a lawyer in Turkey. After completing the internship program they enter a bar association in an area of their interests. Turkish bar association offers the internship which covers 6 month court trainee and 6 month internship in a law office. While passing the bar exam is a requirement in the USA, it is not a requirement in Turkey.
I-b: Turkish Legal Procedure
The general term for members of the legal profession is hukukçu. Having graduated from a law faculty at a university they can become avukat (lawyer, attorney, solicitor), yargiç (judge, also called hakim in the Ottoman Turkish language), savcı (prosecutor) or noter notary or public notary) after terms of internship specified in separate laws.[1]
I- c: American Legal Procedure
The bar association is a professional body of lawyers. There are various types in operation within the USA, some regulate the legal profession in within the jurisdiction in which they operate, others are professional organizations dedicated to serve their members and some do both.
The bar association comprises lawyers who are qualified attorneys, engaged in the practice of law. In the United States, admission to the bar is permission granted by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in that system. This is to be distinguished from membership in a bar association. In the United States, some states require bar association membership for all attorneys, while others do not.[2] There is no such requirement in Turkey. All lawyers must join the bar association.[3]
II- JUDGES
II-a: Judges in the USA
In the United States there are no modern instances of the President nominating or the Congress approving any candidate who is not a member of any bar., there are no professional requirement that must be met, and Judges may or may not be members of the bar.[4]That said, judges are usually high-renking members of the legal proffession such as magistrates, successful attorneys and legal academics.[5] There are no modern instances of the President nominating or the Congress approving any candidate who is not a member of any bar. Appointment as a judge is usually life long, appointments, are made by the President under the aforementioned article with consultation of the Senate.
They sit "on the bench", and the cases which come before them are "at bar" or "at bench". Some federal states require that some or all judges be members of the bar; typically these limit or completely prohibit the judges from practicing law while serving as a judge.
There are various professional associations of judges, such as the American Judges Association, that perform some of the educational and other service functions of bar associations.
II-b: Judges in Turkey
The Turkish court system does not include the concept of jury. Verdicts are reached by a panel of judges, who have to base their verdicts on the law and their conviction. A judge is also a law school graduate and can be a criminal judge, a civil judge or an administrative judge.
The first judge is serving at a penal court. These courts are separated into asliye ceza (also translated as penal court of first instance) and heavy penal court. The second kind of judge serves at a court of justice or judicial courts, while the last serves in administrative courts.[6] The Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors deals with the admission of judges and public prosecutors of courts of justice and administrative courts into the profession, appointments, transfers to other posts, the delegation of temporary powers, promotion to the first category, the allocation of posts; decisions concerning those whose continuation in the profession is found to be unsuitable; the imposition of disciplinary penalties and removal from office.
III- TURKISH COURT SYSTEM
III-a: General
The first area of the American court system that needs to be explored is the dual system of courts; federal and state courts. This plural legal system is not familiar in Turkey, there is no concept of the federal court system in Turkey . Turkey is not a federal state and does not have separate states. All cities have the same legal system which is based on civil law.
III-b: Judicial Courts( courts of justice )
The Turkish court system operates ın a different manner to the American Court system, Firstly there are two forms of judicial courts, the (civil) peace courts (sulh hukuk mahkemeleri) are the lowest civil courts and operate with a single judge. There is at least one in every district. Its jurisdiction covers all cases assigned to the court by the Code of Civil Procedure and other laws. Then there are the civil courts of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemeleri) which are the basic courts. Their jurisdiction covers all civil cases other than those assigned to the peace courts. There is one in every city and district, and sometimes divided into several branches according to the need and necessity.[7]
III-c: Criminal Courts
Even though the penalties are no longer divided into light and heavy sentences the criminal courts still are named according to the penalties they were entitled to pass. Penal courts of first instance (or simply penal courts asliye ceza mahkemeleri) are courts with a single judge deciding on minor cases. There is one in every city and in every district, sometimes divided into several branches according to the need and population. The heavy penal courts (Interpol terms them Central Criminal Courts) consist of a presiding judge and two members with a public prosecutor. Offenses and crimes involving a penalty of over five years of imprisonment are under the jurisdiction of these courts of which there is one in every city. But it is sometimes divided into several branches according to the need and population.[8]
III-d: Administrative Courts
Administrative courts (idari mahkemeler) exist at provincial level. The next instance are regional administrative courts (bölge idari mahkemeler). The highest administrative court in Turkey is the Turkish Council of State (Danıştay also called Supreme AdministrativeCourt) or, equivalent to a federal supreme administrative court such as the Conseil d'Etat in France or the Federal Administrative Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht).
III-e: State Security Courts
Under the 1982 Constitution the then military government established State Security Courts (Devlet Güvenlik Mahkemeleri) to try cases involving crimes against the security of the state, and organized crime. The State Security Courts (SSC) began to operate from May 1984 and replaced military courts which had been in operation during the martial law period. They existed only in eight (of then 67 and now 81) provinces. In April 1991 the Law to Fight Terrorism (Law 3713) entered into force and cases involving crimes against the security of the state were now punishable under this law. The panel of three judges in
each State Security Court included a military judge. As armed forces officers, such military judges remained dependent on the military for salary and pension, subject to military discipline and therefore not independent of military control. In a number of cases the European Court of Human Rights has found the presence of military judges in the State Security Courts to be a violation of the fair trial principles set out in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
In June 1999 the then Turkish government removed the military judge from the bench. In the context of a package of reforms to the Constitution passed in June 2004, the SSC State Security Courts were formally abolished. The State Security Courts were transformed into Heavy Penal Courts, only competent to try cases involving organized crime, terrorism and state security. Since the entering into law of a new Criminal Procedure Code on 1 June
2005, the official name for these courts has been "Heavy Penal Courts (competent to examine crimes under article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code)". Most of the cases heard in these courts concern cases of political prisoners. [9]
III-d : Supreme Courts
III-d-1. General
The Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Council of Public Accounts, the Supreme Military Court of Appeals, the Supreme Military Administrative Court and the Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts are the supreme courts mentioned in the judicial section of the Constitution.[10]
III-d-2. The Constitutional Court
The basic function of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey (T.C. Anayasa Mahkemesi), established in the 1961 Constitution, is to examine the constitutionality, in both form and substance, of laws, and decrees with the power of law and the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT). Other functions of the Court are as follows:- With the capacity of the High Tribunal, the Constitutional Court judges the fallowing :
- the President,
- members of the Council of Ministers,
- members of supreme courts,
- the chairman and members of the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors and of the Supreme Council of Public Accounts,
- the Chief Republic Prosecutors and the Deputy Republic Chief Prosecutors for crimes related to their offices.
- It audits the finances of political parties.
- It examines GNAT decisions to revoke the immunities of deputies, or to dismiss members of parliament.
- It chooses the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts.
The Constitutional Court is composed of 11 regular and four substitute members. Decisions are made when the eleven members convene. The decisions of the Constitutional Court are final. These decisions cannot be amended in any manner and their application cannot be delayed.[11]
Currently, the head of the Turkish Constitutional Court is Mrs. Tülay Tuğcu, who holds the title President of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi Başkanı).
III-d-3. The Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals (also called Court of Cassation) is the last instance for reviewing rulings and judgments rendered by justice courts, criminal courts, the examination courts and renders verdicts upon appeal. The opinions rendered by the Court of Appeals are taken as precedents for legal rulings in the lower courts throughout the country, so that uniform application may be achieved. It is also able to modify its own ruling upon request.[12]
The Court of Appeals is divided into judicial and penal chamber (hukuk ve ceza daireleri). As of April 2007 there were 21 judicial and 11 penal chambers.
The highest judge, who holds the title First President (Birinci Başkan), is currently Osman Arslan. The High Court of Appeals also has a Chief Public Prosecutor (Yargitay Cumhuriyet Başsavcısı) in contrast to the Constitutional Court.
III-d-4. The Supreme Council of Public Accounts
The Audit Court or the Supreme Council of Public Accounts (Sayıştay) is charged with auditing, on behalf of the GNAT, all accounts related to the revenues, expenditures and property of government departments financed by general and subsidiary budgets. No applications for judicial review of its decisions shall be filed in administrative courts.[13]
III-d-5. The Supreme Military Court of Appeals
III-d-5.a. General
The military court system exercises jurisdiction over military personnel and during periods of martial law. The duties are described in Article 11 of Law 1402 on Martial Law of May 1971. Further details are laid out in Articles 11 to 14 of Law 353 on the Foundation and Criminal Procedures at Military Courts of October 1963 (revised in October 2006). The military court system consists of military courts and a supreme military administrative court.
The Military Courts have jurisdiction to try military personnel for military offenses, for offenses committed by them against other military personnel or crimes committed in military places, or for offenses connected with military service and duties. Under martial
law military courts are competent to try all offences that led to the announcement of martial law. Article 14 of Law 353 describes the offences to be tried at miltary courts in time of war.[14] According to Article 2 of Law 353 the courts consist of two military judges
(askeri yargıç) and an officer. In cases involving more than 200 defendants the bench has four judges and one officer. Military prosecutors (askeri savcı) will be appointed according to the need.[15] Judges and prosecutors hold the title judge (yargıç) along with their ordinary officer's ranks whether they are on the bench or prosecutors.
In military courts, there rarely are defense lawyers to the accused, although the defendants are entitled to legal counsel from military personnel with the title "askeri yargıç".[16]
III-d-5.b. The Supreme Military Court of Appeals
The Military Court of Appeals or the Supreme Military Court of Appeals (Askeri Yargıtay) is the court of final instance for all rulings and verdicts rendered by military courts. It is also a court of first and final instance with jurisdiction over certain military personnel, stipulated by law, with responsibility for any specific trials of these persons.[17] It has a President, usually a brigadier general and a Chief Prosecutor usually a colonel.
III-d-6. The Supreme Military Administrative Court
The Supreme Military Administrative Court (Askeri Yüksek İdare Mahkemesi) has jurisdiction over military personnel in administrative cases or active military service. It's organization is similar to that of the Military High Court of Appeals.
Note that military courts and civilian courts do not act as subordinates to each other. They are independent from each other and should be immune to political influence. Also note that military courts are exceptional and are only available in military restrcted areas.
III-d-7: The Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts
The Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts (uyuşmazlık mahkemesi) is the final authority to settle disputes concerning verdicts and the competences of the Justice, Administrative or Military Courts. This court is made up of members of the High Court of Appeals, the Council of State, the Supreme Military Court of Appeals, and the Military Administrative Court of Appeals.
IV-AMERICAN COURT SYSTEM
IV-a : General
Unlike Turkish Law system, American Law system is based on the English common law system. The jury determines what the facts are in the particular case, however in a bench trail – a trial without a jury- the judge determines both the facts and what the law is. Since Turkey has one legal system, each state has its own rules and procedures in the United States. American legal system has federal[18] court and state court.
IV-b : The United States Federal Courts[19]
IV-b-1. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court seats 9 justices, a chief and eight associates; has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors or state versus state disputes; hears other cases when 4 agree to issue a writ of certiorari (pronounced sur-shee-uh-rah-ree) to review a lower court case, and different sides file briefs and attorneys make oral arguments; a vote of 5:4 or higher, with concurring opinions and/or dissents may be a landmark decision if it ends controversy and settles Constitutional interpretation.[20]
IV-b-1-a. United States Courts of Appeal ( 12 Circuits )
consist of 167 judges among 13 courts, dispersed regionally, twelve to look for judicial error in lower courts, and one that handles patents and when the U.S. government is a defendant; they have mandatory jurisdiction (must hear appeals) from lower courts, and appeals are either frivolous, ritualistic, or nonconsensual, with nonconsensual appeals sometimes settled as precedent at this level
IV-b-1-a.a.: United States Tax Court
The United States Tax Court is an administrative court created by the U.S. Congress. Its duty is to adjudicate disputes over certain U.S. tax deficiencies. Unlike the U.S Supreme Court, Tax Court judges are appointed for a term of 15 years.
IV-b-1-a.b.: United States District Courts with Federal
Jurisdiction Only
IV-b-1-b: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
IV-b-1-b.a.: United States District Courts with Federal and
Local Jurisdiction Only
IV-b-1-b.b.: United States District Courts with Federal and
Jurisdiction
consist of 650 judges among 95 courts dispersed in every state and territory; they have original jurisdiction (conduct trials) over criminal violations of federal law, and are assisted by 369 U.S. Magistrates who handle pre-trial matters and may try minor offenders; some courts at this level have specific responsibilities; many have cases backlogged.[21]
IV-b-1-b.c.: United States Claims Court
This court has limited jurisdiction and it was formed on 1 October 1982. This court hears
claims against the U.S government. The Court of Federal Claims do not have lifetime tenure. The judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate and serve for fifteen years, and are eligible for reappointment.
IV-b-2: United States Court of Military Appeals
It exercises jurisdiction over the member of the U.S military and the Court’s decisions are subject to the U.S Supreme Court’s direct review.
IV-b-2-a : Army, Military Court
IV-b-3: State Supreme Courts
State Supreme Courts or High Courts that exist in all 50 states and typically have 5-9 justices who sit en banc (all together) and hear appeals from state courts of general jurisdiction or state intermediate appellate courts if the state has one; they have final interpretation on state law, and although technically, someone could appeal from this level to the U.S. Supreme Court, it rarely happens because few cases involve the Constitution or federal law.[22]
IV-b-4 :Intermediate Appellate courts
· This court for 42 states
IV-b-5: Trial Courts
Typically known as courts of general or original jurisdiction, trial courts are where litigation begins. Here judges and juries listen to witnesses, examine evidence and decide in favor of one party or the other. Decisions from these courts may be appealed to intermediate appellate courts and possibly courts of last resort. Trial courts have names that reflect what kinds of cases they can hear and where they are located, e.g, Small Claims Court, Criminal Court, District Court (e.g. Federal), Supreme Court.[23]
IV-b-5-a: Family Court, criminal Court[24]
V-JURY SYSTEM
V-a: General
American common law legal system, a grand jury is a type of a jury which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger and distinguishable from a petit jury, which is used during a trial.The first grand jury was held in England in 1166.[25] The grand jury was recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility. Its roots stretch back as early as 997 A.D., when an Anglo-Saxon king, Ethelred the Unready, charged an investigative body of his reign that it should go about its duty by accusing no innocent person, and sheltering no guilty one.[26]
V-b: Grand Juries are Today
Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. The United Kingdom abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. In Australia, although the State of Victoria maintains provisions for a grand jury in the Crimes Act 1958 under section 354 Indictments, it has been used on
rare occasions by individuals to bring other persons to court seeking them to be committed for trial on indictable offences. New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961. Canada abolished it in the 1970s. Today approximately half of the states in the U.S. employ them,[27] and only twenty-two require their use, to varying extents.[28] Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed; a grand jury is part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. The grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens, must first decide whether there exists reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The grand jury's decision is either a "true bill" (meaning that there is a case to answer) or "no true bill". Jurors typically are drawn from the same pool of citizens as a petit jury, and participate for a specific time period.[29]
V-LEGAL TESTIMONY
V-a: General
Legal testimony In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness
‘testimony. A subpoena commands a person to appear. It is compulsory to comply.
When a witness is asked a question, the opposing attorney can raise an objection which is a legal move to disallow an improper question, preferably before the witness answers, and mentioning one of the standard reasons, including:
• Argumentative or inflammatory
• Asked and answered
• Best evidence rule
• Calls for speculation
• Calls for a conclusion
• Compound question or narrative
• Hearsay
• Irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent
• Lack of foundation
• Leading question
• Privilege
• Vague There may also be an objection to the answer, including
:• Non-responsive
Up until the mid-20th century, in much of the United States, an attorney often had to follow an objection with an exception to preserve the issue for appeal. If an attorney failed to "take an exception" immediately after the court's ruling on the objection, he waived his client's right to appeal the issue. Exceptions have since been abolished, due to the widespread recognition that forcing lawyers to take them was a waste of time.
VI- CROSS- EXAMINATION
VI- a: General
In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent.
It is preceded by direct examination (in England, Australia and Canada known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a pass on (re-examination in England, Australia, and Canada).In the United States,[30] the cross-examining attorney is typically not permitted to ask questions which do not pertain to the facts revealed in direct[31] examination. This is called going beyond the possibility of the direct examination. This does not apply in England and Australia, where once a witness is called the opponent's lawyer can ask any question relevant to the issues in the trial.
Unlike in direct examinations, on the other hand, leading questions are typically permitted in a Cross-examination,[32] since the witness is presumed to be unsympathetic to the opposing side.
The cross-examination period of a debate is a time when the person who is not going to speak next in the constructives questions the person who has just finished speaking. Consider cross examination an information exchange period - it is not the time to role play lawyer. [33]
Cross examination may serve up six objectives: [34]
1-To clarify points
2-To expose errors
3-To obtain admissions
4-To setup arguments
5-To save prep time
6-To show the judge how cool you are so they want to vote for you.
Most debaters tend to ignore the value of good cross-examination. Remember, 20% of the entire debate is spent in cross-examination . it should be a meaningful and essential part of the debate. If nothing else, debaters tend to underestimate the importance that cross-examination may have on the judge. In cross-examination, briefs are not read and advanced arguments are not spewed out. Cross-examination will indicate to the judge just how sharp and spontaneous the debaters are. Invisible bias will always occur in a debate round and judges would always like the sharpest team to win. Good, effective cross-examination of the opponents can play an important psychological role in winning the ballot of the judge.
Be dynamic. Have questions and be ready to go, answer questions actively and with confidence whenever you can. The image you project will be very important
to the audience/judge. This is the one opportunity the audience/judge has to compare you with opponent’s side-by-side.
VI-b: Cross-examination in Turkey
Cross-examination is a method of providing justice according to the case law of European Court of Human Rights. Because Turkey is a party of European Convention on Human Rights (1950) Turkey use cross-examination as an instrument to provide the fair trial.
[1]ICL Document Status: Dec 2002
[2] Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law/Yale University 2002
[3]http://www.barobirlik.org.tr/eng/search/index.aspx
[4]http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_5_0.html
[5] ıbıd
[6] http://www.interpol.int/public/Region/Europe/pjsystems/turkey.asp#31
[7] http://www.interpol.int/public/Region/Europe/pjsystems/turkey.asp#31
[8] http://www.interpol.int/public/Region/Europe/pjsystems/turkey.asp#31
[9] http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR440132006,Köksal Bayraktar, Professor of Law, Galatasaray University, Istanbul
[10] http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/Structure.htm
[11] http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/Structure.htm
[12] http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/Structure.htm
[13] http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/Structure.htm
[14] Kemal Gözler, Hukuka Giriş, Bursa, Ekin Kitabevi, 3. Baskı, 2006, s.-112-117
[15] Text of law 353 turkish military code
[16] Kemal Gözler, Hukukun Temel Kavramları, Bursa, Ekin Kitabevi, 3. Baskı, 2006, s.54-55
[17] Kaya Abdullah, Turkish Military Jurisdiction System , 5A.25.7
[18] Understanding the Federal Courts (1992) Reference KF 8700 .Z9 U52
[19]While on the state level some justices are popularly elected, no federal judge is elected by any constituency. They also do not serve a fixed term, but rather hold office for life "during good behavior." These two provisions result from constitutional attempts to isolate judicial decisions from political pressures, and contribute to the independence of the judiciary. Originally (in 1789), there were 13 U.S. district courts, but today, there are 95 of them, distributed throughout all 50 states and U.S. territories. District courts are the most common trial courts of the federal system. They have general jurisdiction over all federal crimes, bankruptcies, and when somebody challenges the constitutionality of a state or federal law. No district court crosses state lines. Large states like California, New York, and Texas each have four U.S. district courts. The number of judges depends on the size and population and workload. Although each district has numerous judges, a single judge presides over each case. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm
[20] Neubauer, David. (1992). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Pacific Grove: Brooks Cole., http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm
[21] http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm
[22] Stumpf, Harry & John Culver. (1992). The Politics of State Courts. NY: Longman. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm
[23] The Judicial Maze: The Court System in New York State (1990) KFN 5950 .Z9 L4
[24] American court system very different from Turkey. Turkey has one system one court for all states in the USA it s very different . All states has own legal system.
[25] An Essay on the Law of Grand Juries, (E. Ingersoll, Philadelphia, 1849).
[26]http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter30/flgrandjuryhandbook.rtf, Harlan Fisk Stone Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
[27]http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/abolish.htm.
[28] George J. Edward, jr. of the philadelphia bar.
.
[29]http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html. Grand Juries 29 L. T. 21,1, 35, 38, Grand Jurors as Witnesses (M. W. Hopkins, 21 Cen. L. J. 104). 118
[30]http://debate.uvm.edu/code/080.html.
[31]http://www.howardnations.com/crossexamination/cross_ex.html. Francis L. Wellman, The Art of Cross-examination, 1903
[32]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination.
[33]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination.
[34]http://debate.uvm.edu/code/080.html.
BIBLIYOGRAFI
[1]ICL Document Status: Dec 2002
[1] Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law/Yale University 2002
[1]http://www.barobirlik.org.tr/eng/search/index.aspx
[1]http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_5_0.html
[1] ıbıd
[1] http://www.interpol.int/public/Region/Europe/pjsystems/turkey.asp#31
[1] http://www.interpol.int/public/Region/Europe/pjsystems/turkey.asp#311.
[1] http://news.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR440132006,Köksal Bayraktar, Professor of Law, Galatasaray University, Istanbul
[1]http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/Structure.htm..
[1] http://www.byegm.gov.tr/REFERENCES/Structure.htm
[1] Kemal Gözler, Hukuka Giriş, Bursa, Ekin Kitabevi, 3. Baskı, 2006, s.-112-117
[1] Text of law 353 turkish military code
[1] Kemal Gözler, Hukukun Temel Kavramları, Bursa, Ekin Kitabevi, 3. Baskı, 2006, s.54-55
[1] Kaya Abdullah, Turkish Military Jurisdiction System , 5A.25.7
[1] Understanding the Federal Courts (1992) Reference KF 8700 .Z9 U52
. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm.
[1] Neubauer, David. (1992). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Pacific Grove: Brooks Cole., http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm.
[1] http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm
[1] Stumpf, Harry & John Culver. (1992). The Politics of State Courts. NY: Longman. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/111/111lect08.htm.
[1] The Judicial Maze: The Court System in New York State (1990) KFN 5950 .Z9 L4
[1] An Essay on the Law of Grand Juries, (E. Ingersoll, Philadelphia, 1849).
[1]http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter30/flgrandjuryhandbook.rtf, Harlan Fisk Stone Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
[1]http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/abolish.htm.
[1] George J. Edward, jr. of the philadelphia bar.
[1]http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html. Grand Juries 29 L. T. 21,1, 35, 38, Grand Jurors as Witnesses (M. W. Hopkins, 21 Cen. L. J. 104). 118[1] http://www.howardnations.com/crossexamination/cross_ex.html. Francis L. Wellman, The Art of Cross-examination, 1903
http://debate.uvm.edu/code/080.html.
|
Bu makaleden kısa alıntı yapmak için alıntı yapılan yazıya aşağıdaki ibare eklenmelidir :
"Comparing The Turkish Legal System From The American Legal System" başlıklı makalenin tüm hakları yazarı Yasemin Güllüoğlu'e aittir ve makale, yazarı tarafından Türk Hukuk Sitesi (http://www.turkhukuksitesi.com) kütüphanesinde yayınlanmıştır.
Bu ibare eklenmek şartıyla, makaleden Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanununa uygun kısa alıntılar yapılabilir, ancak yazarının izni olmaksızın makalenin tamamı başka bir mecraya kopyalanamaz veya başka yerde yayınlanamaz.
|
|
Comparing The Turkish Legal System From The American Legal System
