Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: November 19, 2012
URE 1101. Applicability of Rules. Amend. Makes URE applicable to preliminary hearings in criminal cases. Effective October 24, 2012 under Rule 11-105(5). Subject to change after the comment period.
Supreme Court Order.
This is a bad idea. Preliminary Hearings are not trials. This is just one more obstacle for law enforcement.
It will help to eliminate frivolous trials where the prosecution does not truly have sufficient evidence for conviction at a jury trial. Perhaps it will eliminate some of the subversion of justice that takes place, where they play “bluff poker” and utilize oppressive pretrial incarceration to effectively coerce innocent defendants into accepting plea “agreements”.
(which often enough ought to be referred to as “frame bargains” since having a “conviction” entered on your record where you’ve “essentially confessed” can affect you later on. It becomes a form of defamation of character; a form of criminal defamation being perpetrated by the prosecution!)
I think that in order to provide fair and honest Due Process of Law, that the rules of evidence ought to also apply in any proceeding that can affect substantial liberty interests of the defendant. That would include everything listed in item (3)(c).
In A.H.F, juvenile courts were recently told that they effectively cannot use the reports created for them by their juvenile probation department in certification cases. By statute, probation officers are required to prepare detailed reports on a minor’s background, the contents of which are inherently almost entirely hearsay. The legislature made it quite clear it expects these reports to be created for use by the juvenile judge in deciding whether to certify minors to be tried as adults (in the rare cases in which the certification process is used). However, the appellate court said that because the juvenile rules say the rules of evidence apply in juvenile court, that the hearsay rule applies, and so those required reports are largely inadmissible (a result that makes no sense). This decision overlooks the fact that this the-rules-of-evidence-apply provision was a general statement subject to modification by more specific provisions, and that the statutory provisions in the Juvenile Court Act demanding a certification report effectively demand hearsay in that situation. It seems as if one possible fix, in view of the fact that Rule 1101 is up for revision at this time, and it appears unlikely the juvenile rule will be amended, would be for juvenile certification hearings to be added to (c)(1).