This posting is part of my Finnish criminal court series. See the
introductory
essay for more information and an overview of the Finnish criminal court
system.
The following is a fictional account of a criminal case, one of the most frequent ones,
written in the form of a play script. A PDF is also
available.
There is also an OpenOffice-generated
XHTML renderition,
which may be more pleasant to read than the version below (but lacks most of its logical markup).
DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED
A glimpse of Finnish criminal justice
Part One
Dramatis personae
Presiding judge
Prosecutor
Defendant
Extras
Three lay judges
Court reporter
Sets
Courtroom
Courthouse lobby
DISCLAIMER
This is a work of fiction. Although this play is based in general terms on real life, all the specific characters and events portrayed or described in this play are fictitious, and any resemblance to real people or events is purely coincidental.
The verdict presented is fictitious, and while it is based on the author's understanding of the law, it may be erroneus. No legal advice should be inferred from this work of fiction.
Scene One:
And so it begins
The courtroom is about the size of a large school classroom, and shaped
as a rectangle in terms of floor layout. The judges' bench, a long wooden
table, lays near one of the short walls; the space between the bench and the
wall is enough to give the judges and the court clerks comfortable room to sit
and to move behind the sitting judges. At the center of the bench is the seat
of the presiding judge, who has easy access to a telephone, a public address
system and a panel for controlling the LED display visible in the lobby above
the courtroom door. To his or her right is the court reporter's seat in front
of a PC and in control of recording equipment. To the reporter's right there is
room for one additional individual. To the presiding judge's left, there are
three chairs for the lay judges.
If one were to stand directly opposite the
presiding judge, on the other side of the bench, one would find an open Bible.
In front of the bench, disregarding the Bible, there is some room,
approximately two meters or so. Along each long wall there is a small table,
and those two tables face each other, and are therefore turned sideways from
the bench's point of view. By the desk on the bench's right is the seat of the
prosecutor, and the other, facing desk is reserved for the witness being
examined. Facing the bench, separated from it by that empty space, are two rows
of tables with chairs. Beyond them there are two rows of seats for the audience
without tables; the farther row is right at the other short wall. The long wall
to the judges' right contains one double door leading to the court building
lobby, and the other long wall contains two sets of double doors at each end of
the wall, leading to a part of the building not accessible to the public. We'll
call the door closer to the bench the judges' door.
The PRESIDING JUDGE is a 50-something man dressed formally in black and blue. The three LAY JUDGES are more casually but still essentially formally clothed. LAY JUDGE ONE is a sixty-something male, LAY JUDGE TWO is a female in her fourties and LAY JUDGE THREE is a female just under thirty. The COURT REPORTER is a female in her fifties, also dressed formally.
It is 9:00. The four JUDGES and the COURT REPORTER are sitting on the bench. Each JUDGE has papers in front of him or her, the PRESIDING JUDGE's stack being by far the thickest.
The PROSECUTOR, fourty-something man, enters through the judges' door, carrying law books and a large stack of paper. He sits down at his desk.
PRESIDING JUDGE
(Nodding to the prosecutor.)
Okay. Let's start.
(Enters codes on the LED machine. Then picks up the public address microphone.)
The criminal case 'prosecutor against Matti Meik l inen' begins in room three. Parties to room three.
Scene Two:
Main hearing
The DEFENDANT enters through the double door from the lobby. He feels a little lost.
PRESIDING JUDGE
(To the defendant:)
Matti Vihtori Meik l inen?
(DEFENDANT nods.)
Please, take a seat in the front row.
(He waits for the defendant to comply.)
This case will be tried as follows. First, the prosecutor will read the
charge. You will then respond by telling us if the charge is correct or not,
that is, if you in fact did commit the acts specified in the charges, and if
you did not, or the charge is only partially correct, you should state briefly
why the charge is in error. The prosecutor will then present
the case, he will describe us his understanding of the events in question. When he is finished, you will again have opportunity to state if the prosecutor is correct or not, and if not, in what way is he wrong. If there is disagreement between you and the prosecutor, we will hear the evidence. After that, the prosecutor will state his or her concluding opinion of the case as presented here. Again, you will have the opportunity to respond. We will conclude with discussion of what punishment, if any, would be appropriate. The court will then discuss the case alone, and will finally announce the verdict. Is this understood?
(DEFENDANT nods.)
Okay. Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR
(Reads the charge from a paper everyone has in front of his or her.)
I demand punishment to Matti Vihtori Meik l inen for driving while intoxicated. Matti Vihtori Meik l inen had on the first of May this year operated his car while his exhaled air contained 0,597 milligrams of alcohol per liter. Matti Vihtori Meik l inen's driving license must be suspended.
PRESIDING JUDGE
(To the defendant.)
Is the charge correct?
DEFENDANT
Yes, it is.
PRESIDING JUDGE
Okay. The prosecutor will now tell us the circumstances and events in detail.
PROSECUTOR
Thank you. It was to my understanding late evening on May day, and the defendant had come from a bar and was
apparently
trying to move his car to a cost-free parking space. A police patrol happened
to observe this and the defendant had apparently been a little shaky in his
walking, so the officers gave him a breathalyzer test, which showed significant
alcohol content. The defendant was brought in the station where a precision
test was performed. The first reading was 0,597 and the second reading was
0,617; the mean of these two is 0,607, and after performing the confidence
subtraction, the reading 0,597 milligrams per liter was obtained.
PRESIDING JUDGE
(To DEFENDANT)
Well then, is what the prosecutor just said true?
DEFENDANT
(Speaking in a colloquial manner and very somberly. He is ashamed and wishes this would be over soon.)
Yeah, it is.
PRESIDING JUDGE
All right. It seems to me that there are no points of disagreement, so we don't need to hear witnesses.
(The PROSECUTOR nods.)
Okay, it's time for the concluding statements. I think we will hear consequence opinions at the same time. Prosecutor?
PROSECUTOR
Thank you. I don't think there is much to say. The case has been shown beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion. We have the precision test readings and the defendant's admission. As to the penalty... the amount of alcohol we are talking about is just below the limit for serious intoxication, so this is no small deal. On the other hand, the circumstances were not very dangerous. I think suspended imprisonment could well be considered, though a stiff fine would probably be more appropriate. The driving ban must be fairly long, obviously.
PRESIDING JUDGE
All right.
(To the defendant.)
Do you have anything to say before we adjourn to consider the case?
DEFENDANT
Well, I suppose it's clear that something is going to be given to me. I prefer a fine, naturally.
PRESIDING JUDGE
Naturally. The court will consider all options. Do you have any special requests concerning a driving ban?
DEFENDANT
As short as possible, of course.
PRESIDING JUDGE
Do you have a particular need for a car, do you need it for work, for example?
DEFENDANT
No.
PRESIDING JUDGE
Okay. Now, your income. We have here the last completed tax report for you, it says you earned 500 euros a month and had no children. Has this changed?
DEFENDANT
No change.
PRESIDING JUDGE
Okay, thank you. If you will then go outside to wait while we consider this case, thank you.
The DEFENDANT exits to the lobby, the PROSECUTOR exits through the judges' door.
Scene Three:
Deliberation
We are now in the lobby outside the courtroom. There are many doors that lead to many courtrooms. Above each door, attached to the wall, is a display showing the current case number; there is also a light saying do not enter, which is lit for most of the rooms, including Three. Also there is a numeric display which is out at the moment for most of the rooms. For some rooms, they indicate when the session will resume. Each courtroom door also has a paper pasted to the door frame listing the cases for the day. The door leading outside is separated from the lobby by a routine security check area, and one of the courthouse police guards stands there waiting for people to enter. Some other guards and janitors sit in their glass booth. There are many people sitting on the chairs, waiting for their turn to enter one of the courtrooms.
DEFENDANT enters from the Courtroom Three door and sits down, waiting. It takes about fifteen minutes. During this time, announcements from other courtrooms could be occasionally heard, and people would enter or exit other courtrooms. Then...
PRESIDING JUDGE
(Over the PA)
Verdict in the case 'prosecutor against Matti Meik l inen' in Courtroom 3.
DEFENDANT exits through the Courtroom Three door.
Scene Four:
The Verdict
The DEFENDANT enters from the lobby and sits down. After a minute, the PROSECUTOR rushes through the judges' door.
PRESIDING JUDGE
(Announcing to all people present.)
The District Court has examined this case and has decided that Matti Vihtori Meik l inen did in fact commit the crime he was accused of in the way specified in the charge. The justification is the combination of the measured alcohol content in Meik l inen's breath and his own admission of guilt. Matti Vihtori Meik l inen is therefore sentenced to pay sixty-five day-fines, that is three hundred and ninety euros. Penal code, Chapter 23, Section 3. His driving license is suspended until the first of November this year. Road Traffic Act Section 75 Paragraph 1.
One who is dissatisfied with this verdict can appeal it to the Vaasa Apellate Court within thirty days. Dissatisfaction must be declared, however, either right now to me or within a week to the Office of this District Court.
(To DEFENDANT)
Come and take the fine ticket and written appeal instructions
(DEFENDANT takes those from the COURT REPORTER.)
This hearing is concluded.
The DEFENDANT leaves, as the court and the prosecutor prepare for the next case.
TO BE CONTINUED
(with the next case)
, i.e., market leaders continuing to stuff more and more features into products that fewer and fewer people actually need to fuel the relentless drive upmarket, opening themselves up to attacks from below by providers of “good enough” products..)
Update: I couldn’t get the blog posting feature of Writely to work, so I ended up copying-and-pasting the HTML into Wordpress. Oh, well. On a brighter note, while I was fiddling with the blog posting feature, CNET News.com reported that Writely is 
