Daniel, W.L. (William-L.)

Filtering

2020 - 20212

Settings

Author search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.ff7bde7b-df1e-4f19-b4ad-407b50b29c6c

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    La Litis contestatio en el proceso penal canónico
    (Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, 2020) Daniel, W.L. (William-L.)
    One of the principal elements of the trial is the act by which the judge, after hearing the parties and weighing the libellus, determines the terms of the controversy (the litis contestatio). Canonical tradition suggests that this moment can be reconfigured in a penal trial in terms of the delicti contestatio, since it involves a bearing witness before the judge of the public notitia criminis and opposition to it or at least the acknowledgment of being the one accused of it. This moment marks the institution of the contradictorium in the penal process and constitutes the basis for procedural self-defense. Judicial praxis deems it sufficient for the formula of the doubt to indicate the alleged delict together with a commonly indeterminate penalty, except in the case of most serious penalties. However, natural justice and the rationality of the judicial process seem to suggest that the formula of the doubt be endowed with greater specificity of the threatened penalty. This could even have implications for a more just administrative penal process.
  • Thumbnail Image
    La normalización del proceso penal extrajudicial (c. 1720). Análisis, crítica, propuestas
    (Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, 2021) Daniel, W.L. (William-L.)
    A plain reading of c. 1342 § 1, albeit in its implicit sense, reveals that the judicial process is the ordinary instrument for handling a penal cause, while an extrajudicial or administrative penal process may only be employed when just causes impede a judicial process. Nevertheless, because the formulation of that canon is a result of a compromise in the Code Commission, and also because of the rarity of penal trials in the decades following the promulgation of the CIC, canonical doctrine has yielded much discretion to the Ordinary in selecting the form of penal process, such that the extrajudicial process has come to be considered the “normal” pathway. In any case, it is critical that the judicial nature of the decision concluding the extrajudicial process be born carefully in mind. Moreover, ongoing profound reflection is to be devoted to considering how the extrajudicial process can be a truly just one. It may be optimal for a single penal process to be proposed to the Legislator de iure condendo.