Jacqueline Nguyen Quotes

The justice system is confused in trying to understand it, but frankly, if it paid attention to the really blatant cases and did a good job with that, we would be light years ahead of where we are now.

All decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the physical and scientific evidence, and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence, not in response to public outcry.

I try to basically keep my opinions to myself when it comes to people who are charged with crimes that I don't know anything about.

Indictments of any kind are serious. That being said, let's not forget that an indictment is not a conviction. We still have due process in this country.

The acid test of any legal system is not the greatness or the grandeur of its ideal concepts, but whether, in fact, it is able to produce order and justice.

When it comes to those who are accused and their right to defend themselves, it is perfectly reasonable to expect relevant evidence to be made public, and I am in favour of open justice.

We have made finality more important than fairness. We shield even clear violations of people's rights if objections aren't raised at the right time in the right way.

Our criminal justice system was designed to be fair and is the fairest system known to man.

Trial by television is ... foreign to our system.

In the criminal justice community, as a judge, being tough is not enough. You have to be fair.

Laymen ought not to be accused save by dependable and lawful accusers and witnesses.

A judge sometimes must release a criminal. He doesn't like it, she doesn't like it, but the law requires it. And the context of an election in which you are "soft on crime" betrays a misunderstanding of the judicial process and a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

Legal aid is crucial in ensuring those truly guilty of crimes are convicted after due process, and those innocent are able to clear their names, by ensuring that access to legal representation is available for everyone, regardless of ability to pay.

People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. 'What happened to the presumption of innocence?' they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.

This is really a pretty good system you have here. What do you call it? "Due process". We're very proud of it.

Whatever disagreement there may be as to the scope of the phrase "due process of law" there can be no doubt that it embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trial, with opportunity to be heard.

But I wound like people to think I was an honest judge and a good judge. And I always tried the reach the best result in every case.

While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.

If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers, or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation.

It is questionless desirable in all ordinary cases, wherever positive law is established, to restrain ourselves within the letter of that law and to allow the criminal all the benefit, if benefit to him shall result, of any evasion or escape that the law shall afford him.

I believe that everybody is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

It's really important to me that the public have confidence in their criminal justice system. We don't operate very well if the public doesn't trust us.

I'm very mindful of the need to ensure we have a criminal justice system in which people have confidence.

Any legitimate system of criminal justice must first concern itself with justice. If just punishments also deter, rehabilitate, or protect, all the better.

The judge weighs the arguments and puts a brave face on the matter, and since there must be a decision, decides as he can, and hopes he has done justice and given satisfaction to the community