First session : legal system in Morocco + definitions

Morocco applies Islamic law according to the interpretation of Imam Malik in:o Family matters (marriage, divorce, inheritance, law of wealth)

Inheritance: in Morocco, one can not disinherit his heirs (children)o Buying and selling of properties not registered in la conservation fonciere,

real property conservatory (Adul) For the other matters we apply the French legal system also called :”civil law system”

“civil law system” ≠ “civil law”: civil law system refers to the whole legal system while civil law refers only to a branch of law, part of the civil law system.

Civil law: it is a broad branch of law that include many others like administrative, labour law except criminal law

The origin of civil law system is the Napoleon Code. Many principles in the Napoleon Code were taken from the old roman code.

Estate: what a person leaves when he dies Conservation fonciere: created by French, lands and properties who used to be owned

by French were registered there. Look at presentation The profession of notaire was created by French, he takes care of writing the selling

contracts of lands registered in conservation fonciere Real property: property that can not be moved or can’t move ≠ personal property Deed: document that proves ownership Civil Marriage: it is a civil contract which consists of an agreement between two

parties. In the contract, the 2 parties have the same rights.

In morocco 3 powers

o Legislative: make the laws: parliament (house of counsellors and house of advisors

o Executive: the head is the king + prime minister + ministerso Judicial power: judges enforce the law, explain it and interpret it.

No adoption in Morocco, it is rather called KAFALA.

Collateral: in a case in which you take a loan against your property (registered at the Real Estate Conservatory). Once the loan is paid, you get a “main levee.”

Language used in Moroccan courts is Arabic.

Session 2: concepts to know related to the application of the civil law system, procedure

Lawsuit: When you want to take a dispute to the court you raise a lawsuit: Da3wa. Defense: it is the argument raised by the defendant (party sued) indicating why

plaintiff (suing party) should not obtain the remedy In equity proceedings the party bring a lawsuit is the petitioner, and the party being

sued is the respondent

Law suit starts in the lower court (first level in court system). The decision of the lower court can be appealed to a higher court

Landlord: owner of a land, rents his land to a tenant / Baille = lease contract In Morocco the law that cares of a dispute between a landlord and tenant for example

concerning unpaid rent, is the Moroccan contract law (1912) which contains 1249 articles: le droits des obligations et control

In this case, to bring a lawsuit, the plaintiff (landlord) must look for an article in the Moroccan contract law that supports his case, mention it in the lawsuit which should be written and addressed to the president of the lower court where the defendant lives.

The plaintiff should provide also the president with the facts of the dispute and the details of the lease contract. He should also ask the president what he wants, what he is looking for (example: monetary damage …)

Generally in a civil case, the plaintiff presents evidence supporting his/her allegation to the court and the defendant. He/she then offers evidence to show why the plaintiff should not obtain the remedy sought. Based on the evidence, the court obtains the remedy sought based on the evidence, the court makes its decision; usually a plaintiff must prove the case by a preponderance of evidence under this standard principle of civil cases.

The plaintiff must convince the court based on the evidence presented by both parties and it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s allegation is true.

The one who comes with more evidence is the one who wins.

Civil Law & the Doctrine used by the Court in Civil cases (preponderance of the evidence).

Under this standard, the plaintiff must convince the court that based on the evidence presented by both parties; it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s allegation is true. In criminal law, however, contrary the civil law is concerned with wrongs committed against the public as a whole. Criminal acts or crimes are defined and prohibited by status or by written law. Criminal defendants (accused since he is the one who is accused by the law or the state in the absence of the plaintiff). Criminals are prosecuted by public officials. In Morocco, they are prosecuted by the prosecutor of the King on behalf of the state (The victim is not a party in the Criminal law).

In U.K: If the state accuses anybody of committing any criminal act, he can choose any lawyer in the country and the country pays (U.K) There are no prosecutors. A prosecutor is chosen from different lawyers.

In a civil case, the purpose or the object is to obtain monetary damages to compensate the injured party. In a criminal case, the purpose is to punish the wrong doer. The punishment has two sides: Imprisonment and fine (That goes to the state since it is a part of the punishment). In some cases, minor ones (misdemeanor), we pay only fines such as not respecting red light or exceed in speed. To punish a wrong doer in an attempt to scare others from similar actions, penalties for violation of criminal status (committing criminal acts) consist of fines and/or Imprisonment. In some cases, death penalty is ordered.

Common law

common law: American, British legal system. Applied also in countries that follow them (India, Pakistan…)

Civil law is a written law Parliaments are the one who pass the laws. Procedure for a law to be valid:

o Someone proposes the law, then, the parliament votes; finally, the law has to be published in the official bulletin.

In Morocco the parliament has two chambers: majliss nouab and majliss al mousstacharin

Contrary to civil law, common law is not a written law.

In civil law, courts, civil judges never give a judgment of imprisonment / only monetary damages.

Early English courts

The origin of English legal system dates from 11th century in England by William The Conqueror. At this time there were first king courts

Disputes used to be settled according to local legal customs and traditions in in various regions

King courts sought to establish a uniform set of customs for the country as a whole.

Courts of law and remedies at law If a person wronged someone in someone one, the king courts award as a

compensation: money, items of value or land. These 3 are remedies of laws given by courts

Remedies of law: the legal mean to enforce a right or redress a wrong

The courts that awarded these compensations became known as courts of law and the three remedies became called remedies at law.

Today remedies at law takes the form of monetary damages

Courts of equity and remedies in equity

Equity is a branch of law found on what might be described as notions of justice and fair dealing that seeks to provide a remedy when no adequate remedy at law is available.

Courts of equity: asked to give many remedies o Specific performance: ordering a party to perform an agreement as promised.

(as of remedy in equity of special performance)o An injunction: ordering a party to cease engaging in a specific activity or to

undo some wrong or injuryo Rescission: the cancellation of contractual obligation (when someone violates a

contract we say he is in breach of contract

Today’s courts of equity, like the early English courts, will not grant a remedy of equity unless the remedy at law(monetary damage) is not adequate

Example: you made a contract with someone to purchase his land. He violated his contract. You sue him and you win monetary damage. But this is not the remedy you seek. You want the seller to go through the contract. So you will ask the court for equitable remedy of specific performance because monetary damages are inadequate in this situation.

Equitable maxims In fashioning appropriate remedies, judges were guided by equitable maxims:

propositions or general statements of equitable rules Example: “equity aids the vigilant not those who rest on their rights”. This is known as

the equitable doctrine of Laches, it can be used as a defense. It encourages people to bring lawsuits while the evidence is fresh.

Read equitable maxims exhibit 1-2 page 9

For each lawsuit there is a period of time where you can take the suit to the court. This time varies according to the case. Times of different cases are fixed by Status of limitation. After the time allowed under status of limitation, no lawsuit can be brought. In general the period is 5 years in Morocco. Your tight arises starting from the first day the wrong is done to you.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis One unique feature of the common law is that it is judge-made law. the body of

principles and doctrines that form the common law emerged with time as judges decided legal controversies.

Stare decisis: it is the most important principle of common law under which the court must apply the precedents established within their jurisdictions.

Jurisdiction: an area in which the court have the power to apply the law. When a court set a principle of law as being applicable to certain set of facts, that

court and lower rank courts in the same jurisdiction must apply it in similar cases Thus stare decisis has two aspects: decisions made by higher courts are binding on

lower courts + a court should not overturn its own decision unless there is a compelling reason

There are situations where the court change precedents: if if it judges it is incorrect ot that technological and social changes have made it unapplicable (ex: law that separate races in public schools changed in 1950) in this case you can appeal the decision of the judge in a higher court

When you bring a law suit in the US, instead of looking for articles that support your case like in civil law system, you must look for precedents (court judgments)

Precedents are similar cases. When plaintiff bring a lawsuit to the lower court, he should mention the precedent and say in this case the court did “this” in favour for the plaintiff and ask the court to give him the same judgment.

If there is no precedent, the judge has to come with a judgment. This situation is called the case of first impression. This gives the judge in common law higher power than judge in civil law who has to just apply written laws.

In cases of first impression, courts often look at persuasive authorities: precedents from other jurisdictions. It can look also social values, customs, fairness…

In the defence, the lawyer of the defendant has to ask the judge to not apply the case mentioned by the plaintiff but apply another one.

Legal reasoning

It is the explanation that the judge must give to explain his judgment Process used by judges in deciding what laws applies to the dispute and then applying

that law to the specific facts of the case We need legal reasoning because if we want to appeal the decision of the court we will

attack its legal reasoning. Arbitration: when people try to solve their dispute outside the court system Arbitrator: is the person the choose to decide. In opposition to judge, arbitrator does

not need legal reasoning.

Steps of legal reasoningbook

1. What are the key facts and issues. The facts must be proven2. What rules of law apply to the case (Know the branch of law is involved)

a. Rule of law may be a rule stated by the courts in previous decisionsb. Example: plaintiff come to court claiming assault (wrongfull and intentional

action in which one person makes another fearfull of immediate physical harm : this is a a class of action called tort. The plaintiff alleges (claim) that he was threatened when he was sleeping. Although he was unaware, his roommate heared the defendant make the threat. The legal issue is whether the defendant actions constitute the tort of assault given the plaintiff was not aware of those actions at the time they occurred

c. In this case the applicable law is the tort law governing assault. Case precedents and issues involving similar facts would be relevant

3. How do the rules of law apply to the particular facts and circumstances of this case?4. What conclusion should be drawn.

Notes: in the courta. What are the factsb. The facts must be provenc. What is the branch of law,d. Determine the issue: question. Find what the law say about the issuee. Decisionf. Reasoning

Tort law: civil part of wrongful act. Each wrongfull act has two part ex attack someone in the street

o Criminal part: between the state and the defendant. Although plaintiff withdraw the suit, prosecutor still attacks

o Civil part: victim went to hospital he wants monetary damage.

If someone commits a crime, usually it has 2 sides: Criminal one (between the prosecutor and the defendant) & civil one. The part that concerns the victim concerns asking for damages… It’s called Tort Law. The assault can be considered as a Tort.

Equitable relief: every time there is injustice.Equity regards substance rather than form. We mean by this that every law suit has 2 parts. The 1st one is its form (was it done properly. Payment of court fees is a part of the form). Court of equity does not follow this rule. It is the last door.

Forms of legal reasoning

Deductive reasoning: employs a logical relationship involving a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.

For example in previous case, the judge say that under the tort law the victim must be aware of the assault (major premise). In the case the victim was unaware of the assault (minor premise), therefore the circumstances do not amount to an assault (conclusion)

Linear reasoning: facts tighed to each other. It proceeds from one pint to another with the final point being the conclusion.

Example: a tenant in an appartement sues the landlord for damages for injury resulting from inadequate light in the stairway, the reasoning is as follow (tort law): first; the landlord who was on the premises the evening the injury occurred testifies that none of the other tenants who used the stairway that night complained about the lights. The facts that they did not complain is the same as if the lights was adequate. That there were no complaints does not mean the lighting was sufficient but proves that the landlord had no reason to believe it was not. The landlord beliefs was reasonable because no one complained. Therefore the landlord acted reasonably and was not negligent with respect to the lighting

Reasoning by analogy: to compare the facts of the case at hand to the facts in other cases and to the extent that the patterns are similar to apply the same rule of law to the present case.

Example: case A: court held that a driver who crossed a highway center line is negligent. Case B: driver did the same but to avoid hitting a child. Judge would have to compare the situations and the reasons of driver A and B. the responsibility of B is less. Judge must explain why

Sources of the law:

1. The US constitution applicable for the whole country and state constitution. It is the foundation of all the other laws. Other laws should not contradict it. In European countries, courts have the authority to get rid of laws that contradict the constitution

2. Federal laws: passed by the two federal houses: house of representatives and house of senate. It covers all the country ex: immigration law, bankruptcy law, mail fraud laws

3. The state constitutions4. State statutes (written law): law enacted by legislative bodies at any level of the

government. Ex: death penalty in criminal law5. Common law principles: if a common law is very important it is passed to become a

written law. If it violate state statues it must go6. Decisions of the court: precedents of the court or case law. there are two cases

a. Domestic case: decision given by American courtsb. Foreign decisions

The doctrine of comity: under international law, domestic courts should enforce foreign decisions as long as they don’t contradict the domestic public order

Civil law

Commercial law, contract law, administrative law, labour, real estate law… In morocco, marriage is not a part of civil law but Islamic law Civil law is concerned with the duties that exist between the plaintiff and the

defendant for example a contract The duties can be between a person, citizens and governments (for example if you

work for the gov, and u get fired), excluding the duty not to commit a crime (criminal law)

Expropriation: before gov occupy your land, he should get an authorization from the administrative court

Technically in a civil case, a private party sues another one to make that other party comply with the duty or pay for the damage caused by the failure to commit to the duty

Preponderance of evidence: Both parties are asked by the court to bring evidence. Under this standard, in a civil case plaintiff presents evidence (document, witness) supporting his or her allegation, and the defendant offers then evidence to show why the plaintiff should not obtain the remedy sought. It is most likely that he plaintiff allegation is true

Criminal law

In contrast to civil law, criminal law is concerned with wrongs against the society as a whole

Criminal acts are defined and prohibited by statutes (written law) Criminal defendant are prosecuted by the prosecutor in the name of the state The prosecutor in the US is the district attorney or DA. He is elected by people for a

period of time In Morocco we have the prosecutor of the king (wakil al malik) for crimes punishable

for 5 years or less. His office is in the lower court. For more serious crimes we have the general prosecutor (wakil l3am lmalik) whose office is in the court of appeal

Person sued is defendant or accused judged guilty means judged responsible or liable

The outcome in civil cases is always monetary damages. In criminal cases it is imprisonment or fine or both. In some situations it can reach death

In criminal case, the only the state must come up with evidence, the state must prove defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt means that (in US) 12 members must find the accused guilty otherwise he is not

More strict evidence is required in criminal cases because of the punishment and because the parties are not on the same level (state)

Because the state (power, army, money) has extensive resources at its disposal when prosecuting criminal cases, there are numerous procedural safeguards to protect the rights of defendants against the abuse of the state. As an example could be the higher standard of proof. That is to say that we can ask a lot from the state. We can say to the state that it is the one that should come up with evidence that the defendant is innocent.

Every person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubtWe mean here by the reasonable doubt, that all the 12 judges must agree that the defendant is guilty. If a person is not found guilty, we can never try him again even with the presence of a proof later. If he is guilty, we can try him after if there is a proof. In morocco, every person is innocent until proven guilty after the final decision of the Court (Article 1). In the same article, when there is doubt, it is interpreted in the defendant favor.

One of the safeguards stated above is the higher standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. In criminal case, the state (prosecutor) must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Every jure in C.C must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.

Wrongful act (Civil law) Harm to a person or to a person’s property. Wrongful act (Criminal law) violation of a statute, any one violating the 612 articles in the CC in Morocco. The violation prohibits some type of activity.

Standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence. The one in the criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt. Remedy in civil case is damages to compensate for the harm. In CC, it is punishment and it is usually a fine, imprisonment, both, or sometimes can be death.

Jury

To serve in a jury in a duty:o Most people at least once or twice receive something in the mail that asks them

to serve in a certain case. This does not mean one is selected. One should not have heard, seen, read about the case.

o When the case is popular it is hard to chose jury members. In this case the court change states or case moved to another jurisdiction. This is called change of venue

o The victim should take care of his own interest. He should go to civil court for monetary damages, he doesn’t need to wait for the criminal law decision

in morocco 2 possibilities:o go to civil court to ask for monetary damages to force the defendant to payo While the criminal case Is in the court, he can ask the judge to grant him

monetary damages The judge will look at at the criminal case presented by the state and the civil case for monetary damages.

Case Miranda vs Arizona

FACTS :

- Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963 in his home for the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old woman.

- Miranda was taken to a police station in Phoenix Arizona where he made and signed a written confession after a two hour interrogation

- A paragraph in the confession states that it had been made voluntarily, without threat or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of Miranda of his legal rights understanding that any statement may be used against him

- Miranda was not advised that he had the right to remain silent during the interrogation and the right to have a lawyer present

- The confession was admitted into evidence at the trial- Miranda was convicted and sentenced to prison for twenty to thirty years by the court.

(this means that he should spend at least 20 years then he can ask to appeal before the parole board who has the power to release him. He should explain why he wants to go out. The family if the victim is also present. If refusal, the board set a new date for appeal. In Morocco we don’t have parole board but the pardon of the king. Unlimited power. Although criminal had spent only 1 day he can be released. The king do not take care of this personally, sometimes corruption)

- Miranda appealed the decision claiming that he had not been informed of his constitutional rights.

- The supreme Court of Arizona rejected the appeal: it held that Miranda’s constitutional rights had not been violated and affirmed his conviction

- Miranda case was reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

BRANCH OF LAW:

American criminal law

ISSUE:

Should the two decisions given the 2 courts that found Miranda guilty based on his illegal written confession, be overthrown by the US supreme court

DECISION (Of the US Supreme Court):

Yes they should be overthrown.

REASONING

- For any statement made by a defendant to be admissible, the defendant must be informed of certain constitutional rights before the police interrogation, the 4 Miranda warnings

o Inform the defendant that he is under arrest before arresting him so that he knows the situation.

o The defendant must be informed of his right to remain silent. If he says yes, no one will ask him questions + the silence will not be interpreted against him.

o The defendant should also be warned that he has the right to consult with an attorney, and if he is indigent (without funds), a lawyer will be appointed to him to defend him (in US, not expensive lawyer vs in UK wether you are poor or rich, you are allowed to chooe ny lawyer from the country, the gov pays for it

o Explanation that anything said can be used against him in court. .

- If the defendant waives his rights to remain silent or to have a lawyer, the government must demonstrate that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.

Plea Bargain

Discussion between state represented by the DA and the defendant with the mandatory presence of his lawyer

The prosecutor says for example to the defendant if he accepts to confess he will charge him a 3rd degree crime rather than 1st degree

If the defendant with his lawyer and the prosecutor make an agreement, there is no trial and the punishment is lower.

Before trial, if the prosecutor see that it is important for the state to discuss the case with defendant or inverse, defendant can propose to see prosecutor

Do not exist in Morocco

Voire et dire

It is the system under which we pick the jury members.o They must not have read about the caseo They must not have heard about it

Important issues about the paper Foreigners can not buy an agricultural land outside city limits. If it is within city

limits, can be bought. If is outside, in rural area, then it is considered as an agricultural land. In this case the foreigner should provide with a certificate showing that the land will not be used for agricultural purposes.

We can play around this rule by providing a certificate or by leasing the land for long periods like 99 years.

When the land is not registered, you have to go to the Adul. So the notaire should ask the foreignors first if the land is registered or not

A problem with notaries in morocco is money under the table. To fight this, there is a law that gives the government the right to buy a land with the money put on the table

When the buyer agrees with the seller, he should not give money to the seller. The seller must ask the buyer to come to his notaire because he will charge him less. When the buyer gives money to the notaire, then the notaire is responsible in case of problem and will sue the seller in case of problem. The notaire gives money to the seller only once all problems are solved.

The buyer is the one who should choose the notaire and pay him

Defenses to criminal liability

In some cases although the defendant is proved guilty, he can be excused Infancy: if the defendant is 8 years old (child), and he committed a crime he is

excused. Limit is 12 years. The child can not appear in front of a normal judge. He should go to juvenal court

Intoxication: Drugs or alcohols. If it is voluntary, it can not be asked as a defense, but if it was unvoluntary, it is excused. However, voluntary can be excused only for murders bcs murders need planning

Insanity: mental illensess. Defendants who use insanity most often looses because it is hard to prove that he was insane and not able to differentiate between right and wrong (do not remember). The state uses the M’Naghten test to prove that. Under this test called also the right and wrong test, a defendant is not responsible is at the time of the offense, he did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know that the act was wrong

Mistakeo Mistake of law: someone commits criminal act while not knowing that the

crime is not punishable by the law. Not an excuse for criminalo Mistake of fact: for example someone took a bag by mistake containing drugs

Consent: The victim consent or even encourage the person intending a criminal act to commit it. The general rule is that the consent of the victim is not an excuse but there are exceptions:

o Adultery: the consent of the victim is an excuse but only the husband benefits from it. The woman with who the husband had an affair no.

o Defamation: if for ex a newspaper wrote something bad about you and you consent, it is excused.

Self defense: o Deadly force can not be used to protect your property. Deadly force is a force

that can cause death or serious body harm. It can be used to protect yourself if you reasonably believed that your life was in danger.

Jurisdictions

The latin root of the word “Jurisdiction” means “the power to speak the law” (juris = to speak), it is the authority of a court to decide certain dispute

Before any court hear the case, it must have jurisdiction over the person against whom the suit is brought or over the property involved in the suit. It should also have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute

First type of jurisdiction: in personam: jurisdictions over persons and property A court exercise in personam jurisdiction over any person or business

that resides in a particular geographical area. Ex: state trial court has jurisdictional power over residents of a particular area of the state. The state supreme court have jurisdiction over the whole state.

In rem jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the thing): jurisdiction exercised by the court over property that is located within its boundaries. Ex: dispute arise over the ownership of a boat in florida. The plaintiff is from Nebraska and the defendant is from ohio. The case can be brought to the court of florida on the basis of the court in rem jurisdiction.

Long arm statutes: court can have jurisdiction over out of state defendants based on the activities that took place within the state. It must be proven that the defendant had sufficient contacts, or minimum contacts with the state to justify the jurisdiction. This means that the defendant must have enough connections with the state for the judge to conclude it is fair for the state to exercise power over him.

Jurisdiction over subject matter: refers to the limitations on the type of cases a court can deal with

o Courts with general jurisdiction have unlimited jurisdiction. In Morocco lower courts have general unlimited jurisdictions. These courts can decide on cases involving a broad array of issues. VS limited jurisdiction

o When two merchants have a problem they go to the commercial court (has limited jurisdiction)

o In the US a court that has general jurisdiction is the state trial court. Courts with limited jurisdictions are family courts (probate courts) that decides disputes on family matters. Bankruptcy courts are federal courts wit limited jurisdiction. Probate courts: courts that handle only matters relating to the transfer of a person’s asset and obligation after that person is dead including issues relating to custody and guardianship of children.

o Courts jurisdiction can be limited not only by the subject matter but also by the sum in controversy, whether the caser is a felony (a more serious type of crime), or a misdemeanor (a less serious type of crime) or weather it is a trial or appeal.

Courts in Morocco with original jurisdiction (where disputes start): lower courts. Courts of Original jurisdiction are courts where lawsuit begins, trials take place and evidence is presented. Called also Courts of first instance or trial courts.

Then there are appellate jurisdiction: courts of appeal (in morocco), supreme courts. Courts with appellate jurisdiction act as a reviewing courts or appellate courts. The difference with original jurisdiction courts consist of weather the case is heard for the first time or not.

Venue: concerned with the most appropriate location for a trial. The principle of venue states that a court trying a suit should be in the geographic neighborhood where the incident occurs or where the parties reside. In civil cases venue is often where the parties reside, in criminal cases it is where crime occurs.

Judicial Procedure in Morocco civil cases

Usually the lawsuit starts with an opening statement by the plaintiff in civil courts. He hires a lawyer to write the statement which should be addressed to the president of the court

The plaintiff must tell the president of the court the facts of the dispute He must pay court fees, he receives a receipt from the court. In Morocco it is a little

bit over 1% of the amount requested The statement of the plaintiff must have at least 4 copies. The opening statement

arrive on the desk of the president of courts. Courts have many judges. The case is given to a judge depending on its speciality.

After receiving the statements, judges depending of their schedule and time they have settle a date . Agent of courts notify the parties about that

The parties receive a paper, isti3aa, which include the case number, the name of the court, name of the judge, name of the plaintif and his lawyer, name of the defendant, court date, the hour, the court room and a summary of the case

Usually the defendant and his lawyer ask for a period of time to prepare the defense., the response to the plaintiff

In the next court session the plaintiff ask for some period of time to answer the defendant

When the parties provide the judge with all the documents, the judge put the case to deliberation sometimes for weeks then he appoints a date to give his decision

The decision is made on the name if the king. The judge must write his judgments If the plaintiff wins he must ask the court officially to notify the defendant of the

decision, + pay fees on that The agent of the court take the judgment to the defendant (I officially notify you of

the decision of the court) The period of appeal in Morocco is 30 days in civil cases starting from the day of

notification. Passed this period, the defendant must apply the decision. Starting from the Day of Judgment, you have 10 days (complete) for appeal in a

criminal law.

The period for appeal in civil cases is 30 days complete (without counting the first and last days). We start counting on the day the decision has been notified.

When winning a law suit case:- Get a copy of judgment

- Ask the Court to notify the defendant. If the defendant is not notified, even if he is

Jury system in Morocco

If you receive a convocation from the court you must serve, it is a privilege to participate in the legal system

A date will be mentioned with the court name, hour. When the person hears his name, he will go to see the judge, defendant, DA and he

will be asked about the case. He should know nothing about it. If no jury found, the case is moved to another jurisdiction The prosecutor and the defense should agree about the jury In case one jury ca not come to court there are 3 bonus juries Procedures to call jury members is c alled “voir et dire”, 12 jury members must agree

on the denfendent weather he is guilty or not beyond reasonable doubt Hung jury: members of the jury can’t agree if the defendant is guilty or not, in this

case judge has to pick new jury members To ask for monetary damage go to civil or tort court Although the judge fnd defendant not guilyu, the victim has the right to go to civil

court to ask for monetary dammage (two different cases)

In civil court state must prove guiliness beyond reasonable doubtProsecutor has also the right to appeal in a higher court to as for guiltiness

Alternative Dispute resolution (Page 63)

Why we look for another alternative rather than going to court? When you go to court, it takes a long time. Sometimes, people die while the lawsuit is brought since it take a long time. Also, going to court can be very expensive (Court fees and lawyers). Furthermore, the two parts do not want the decision to be public. Also, the two parts want to do this in an informal

way to avoid tensions. In the court, the judge knows about the law but not about technical staff. So, going to an Arbitrary is more efficient and guarantees a total understanding of the matter. Within the court system, the law is very complicated and extremely formal.

Actually, we have three methods:

1. Negotiation: It is the less formal method. The parties to a problem can meet together to negotiate their dispute. They can do it whenever they want, the way they want… They can even do it after the lawsuit was brought in the court.In this case, we have mini trial where we act lack in the court. We have also early neutral case evaluation where we have experts (Neutral third party) in the matter that evaluate each party’s strength and each party’s weakness.

2. Mediation: In mediation there is a mediator who should be neutral. This mediator is pocked by the two parties to try to help them come to a solution. It is not a formal way to solve the problem. The mediator can be anybody. It is an assisted negotiation method. The mediator cannot enforce his point of view or his decision on the parties. He can only suggest and walk away. This seems to be as a double edged sword.

3. Arbitration: The 3rd party that we call the Arbitrator. You must look at arbitration as result of an agreement between the parties. For arbitration to be accepted, it must be the result of an entente. We can find Court annexed arbitration which a is kind of a method that some states in the US (State of Hawaii) use. It is sued when the amount of the dispute is less that $ 100,000, then they force you to try to solve the dispute through arbitration. This is not an arbitration which a result of an agreement. Many parties were satisfied after this kind of arbitration that is why this kind of arbitration was obliged in some states. If it is a result of an agreement between parties, then it can be enforced. Whatever the decision, the two parties are obliged to respect it. If one of the two parties or both do not respect the decision of the arbitrator, the court must enforce this law and oblige the two parties to respect it. There are some rare cases when the Court cannot force the Arbitrator’s law (Corruption).In such cases, the court set asides those decisions. By the way, the agreement between the two parties must be written. The looser party pays the arbitrator.

P.S: Contract has the power of the law between the parties of the contract.

First Step: The process of arbitration starts with submission. This submission can be defined is giving the matter of the dispute to the arbitrator with the facts, the Q of law, the names of the parties, their identities, the nature of the dispute, the monetary damage, and the location where the arbitration will take place. Most states in the US require that an agreement to submit a dispute to arbitration must be in writing. Also, most states require that matters be submitted within a definite period of time generally 6 months from the date on which the dispute arises.

Second Step: It is the hearing after submission. It is the period in which the Arbitrator will be discussing the case with the parties while each of them explain his or her points of view and start her or his opening statement. Then, each of the parties should give the closing arguments.

Third Step: It is the award which is the decision of the arbitrator. In most states, the arbitrator must give the award within 30 days of the close of the hearing. In most states in the US, the

award of the Arbitrator need not say his findings. Here, we mean that the arbitrator does not to explain his decision nor must the award state the conclusions that the arbitrator reached on any Q of law. All that is required for the award to be valid is that it completely resolves the dispute. Most states do, however, require that the award be in writing.

We have some situations where the court sets aside the Arbitration award such as:1. The decision of the Arbitrator was the result of corruption or fraud (when a party gives to the arbitrator a false document).2. The Arbitrator exhibited bias. If a party in Arbitration notices that were was on the 3 concerns, it must mentioned to the arbitrator at that moment. If he does not raise it, it will be acceptable.3. The arbitrator refuses to postpone the hearing. He can also refuse to hear evidence or a material to the dispute.4. The arbitrator exceeded his powers. He is named to do the certain job and he does more than this.

Q: If a person is tried in a criminal court and the prosecutor says he has committed a criminal act. Then, the court found him not guilty. Can the defendant come to the court and sue this person in civil court? Yes, he can and he may win. The criminal court and the civil court apply different laws. In the Civil court, the defendant and the plaintiff give evidence. The one who gives more evidence is the one who wins. If the person is not guilty, it does not mean that he is not guilty. It means that he is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In the Civil case, there will be only monetary damage.

The Venue is the Specialty of the Court. A law suit brought by a Rabat Citizen against a Fes one should be brought in Fes since the Law Court in Fes is the one having the Venue. We start first with venue then we move to the verification of jurisdiction. In US, the venue can be changed since proper jury members cannot be found (not seen, not heard, and not read).

Standing to sue is allocated only to the victim (not minor).

Case 2: Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foudantion

FACTS:

- Rick Bickford was married in July 1997 and moved with his wife to Maine in June 1998

- The couple agreed on August 18 1998 that each one would pay his or her own debt- The couple divorced in 1999- Bickford’s wife obtalned medical care for her daughter at Onslow Memorial Hospital

in North Carolina- The hospital held him financially responsible for the medical care without telling him

although Bickford was not legally related to his wife’s daughter and he never agreed to pay for the Hospital fees.

- The hospital notified credit reporting agencies that Bickford had been “placed in collection” for failing to pay.

- Bockford asked the hospital to correct the statement but it refused

- The bank would not qualify him for a mortgage because of his outstanding debt- Bickford filed a suit against the hospital in a Maine state court- The defendant (the hospital) asked the court to dismiss the complaint because Maine

did not have any jurisdiction over the hospital- The court dismissed the complaint- Bickford appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

BRANCH OF LAW:

Civil law

ISSUE:

Do the Main state court have jurisdiction over the Onslow Memorial Hospital?

DECISION

Yes the court of main has jurisdiction over …Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court vacated the lower court’s dismissal of Bickford’s complaint and remanded the case to the lower court for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion”.

REASONING

- For Maine to exercise jurisdiction over a non resident defendant, three conditions must exist. Maine’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the hospital met the three required conditions:

1. Maine must have a legitimate interest in the subject matter of this litigationa. Maine has a legitimate interest in allowing its residents a forum in which to

seek redress when out of state creditors refuse to correct erroneous credit reports since credit reports affects the ability of the residents to purchase vital things for their lives. Maine’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the hospital meets this condition.

2. The defendant, by its conduct, reasonably could have anticipated litigation in Mainea. When Bickford contested the credit report, although the Hospital was aware

that this act harms a Maine resident, it refused to correct it. The hospital can be understood to have intentionally directed its conduct toward a Maine resident. So it can be concluded that the hospital could reasonably have anticipated being haled into court in Maine

3. The exercise of jurisdiction by Maine’s court courts comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

a. Although it is inconvenient for the hospital to defend a suit in Maine and potential witnesses are out of state, it would be burdensome for Bickford, whose credit has allegedly been compromised, to prosecute an action in North Carolina. Thus, it does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to hale the hospital into court in Maine