By Tom Jarvis
An international delegation of judges, prosecutors, attorneys, academics, and government officials visited Hillsborough County Superior Court–North on July 6 for a roundtable discussion on how constitutional principles are applied in New Hampshire’s courts and how the state’s criminal justice system compares with legal systems abroad.
The six-member delegation, representing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Hong Kong, Lebanon, Romania, and Tanzania, traveled to the United States through the US Department of State’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP). The delegation’s project, “Freedom 250: The US Constitution’s Enduring Global Legacy,” was designed to examine the Constitution’s development and durability, the relationship between federal and state constitution
s, and the ways constitutional principles are interpreted and applied in the United States and other countries.
The World Affairs Council of New Hampshire coordinated the New Hampshire portion of the visit. Anise Jasman-Sayers, the council’s International Visitor Program director, says the original plan called for separate meetings with the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law (UNH Law) and the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership & Public Policy (Rudman Center). As planning continued, those meetings developed into a single courthouse roundtable involving representatives from several parts of New Hampshire’s legal system.
“For an exchange focused on the enduring legacy of the US Constitution, there was no better setting than an active courthouse where those constitutional principles are applied every day,” Jasman-Sayers says.
Supervisory Judge N. William Delker hosted the delegation. He was joined by Assistant Hillsborough County Attorney Patrick Ives; An
drea Bonito, managing attorney of the New Hampshire Public Defender’s Manchester office; public defender Jordan Strand; and Bryan Rome, a third-year student at UNH Law.
Judge Delker says the visit reflected his belief that courts should help the public understand their work.
“Transparency in the judicial process is key to maintaining confidence and integrity in what we do,” he says. “The delegation from the World Affairs Council provided a rare opportunity to educate lawyers from other countries about how our Constitution works in practice.”
The discussion began with an overview of New Hampshire’s court system, its relationship with the federal courts, and the intersection of the US and New Hampshire constitutions. Rome discussed how constitutional law is taught in law school. Ives, Bonito, and Strand then explained how a criminal case progresses from arrest through trial and, if there is a conviction, through appeal.
Jasman-Sayers says the visitors asked about judicial appointments, prosecutorial discretion, public defense, plea agreements, access t
o justice, and how judicial independence is maintained. The roundtable format allowed them to hear several perspectives on those issues in a single discussion.
“One of the things that stood out most was how quickly the conversation became one among peers,” Jasman-Sayers says. “Judges spoke with judges, attorneys with attorneys, and legal professionals exchanged experiences about challenges they face regardless of country.”
For Judge Delker and Romanian Judge Mihnea Stoicescu of the Bucharest Tribunal, the discussion centered heavily on the difference between New Hampshire’s adversarial criminal justice system and Romania’s inquisitorial system.
Judge Delker says the discussion highlighted a fundamental distinction between the two systems: who bears responsibility for developing the factual record.
“In our system, judges play a more detached and neutral role in evaluating the evidence,” he says. “That allows for greater objectivity, but the judge’s decision may not take into account important information because the parties have not given that information to the court in their presentation of the case.”
Judge Stoicescu describes a model in which the court has considerably more authority to shape the evidentiary process.
“In my system, the judge has a legal obligation to find out the truth,” he says, adding that Romanian judges may request or order new evidence and question witnesses during the trial. “I get to be much more involved in the case, but not in order to reach a certain decision, just in order to establish the truth.”
The exchange also revealed differences not only in procedure but also in professional culture.
“I was pleased to see a very natural, respectful, and cordial relationship between the professionals at the meeting,” Judge Stoicescu says. “We lack these interactions in Romania, and I think they are useful in order to understand each other’s work.”
The two systems also differ in how judges enter the profession. Judge Stoicescu says Romanian judges are generally recruited through exa
minations often taken by younger lawyers.
“In your system, becoming a judge is like crowning a long legal career – the fulfillment of a career,” he says.
He also expresses reservations about placing factual decisions in the hands of juries, something he has not encountered professionally in Romania.
In criminal cases, he says, Romanian prosecutors lose much of their control over a case after it is sent to court. A prosecutor cannot independently drop charges during trial and may recommend an acquittal, but the decision remains with the judge.
“I will not say which system is better because, during our talks, we found issues on both sides,” Judge Stoicescu says.
Temur Tsindeliani, a prosecutor and international law enforcement cooperation specialist with the Prosecution Service of Georgia, focuses on the professional standards that guide prosecutors under both systems.
“Although our legal systems differ in many procedural aspects, I found that the fundamental mission of prosecutors is remarkably similar,” Tsindeliani says.
He says prosecutors in both Georgia and New Hampshire are expected to seek justice, present evidence objectively, protect victims’ right
s, and respect defendants’ rights. The discussion also addressed how those responsibilities interact with the roles of judges and defense attorneys at different stages of a criminal case.
“Before the visit, I was familiar with the constitutional principles underlying the US criminal justice system,” Tsindeliani says. “However, hearing directly from practitioners provided a much deeper appreciation of how those principles function in practice.”
Jasman-Sayers says the visitors appreciated the willingness of the New Hampshire participants to speak candidly about both the strengths of the American judicial system and its continuing challenges.
“They especially valued hearing multiple perspectives in the same discussion rather than receiving a single point of view,” she says. “That openness is something many visitors consistently tell us they appreciate throughout their IVLP experience.”
The exchange also gave the New Hampshire participants an opportunity to learn how other legal systems approach similar issues.
“Many of our hosts tell us they walk away having learned just as much from the visitors as the visitors learned from them,” Jasman-Sayers says.
Judge Delker says the exchange encouraged the New Hampshire participants to consider their own practices from a different perspective.
“We should always be testing our assumptions that we have the only fair system,” he says. “Being open to new ideas can improve how we deliver justice in New Hampshire.”