The German-American Law Journal blog links to an old findlaw article by Anthony J. Sebok on How Germany Views U.S. Tort Law.

bq. From conversations with German friends and from reading the German press, I had always suspected Germany’s view of the U.S. tort system was conflicted, to say the least. But this impression was driven home to me this summer, when I taught German law students a basic first year course in torts, the same course I teach in New York City.

Two things in the article struck me from the British point of view: the British don’t know the Socratic method any more than the Germans do, and the English have a book, Kemp & Kemp on Quantum of Damages, not exactly like German Tabellen, but indicating the kind of awards that judges have been making.

There are some excellent points in the article. The conclusion is a bit oversimplified. I think it’s true that most European nations do not share the U.S. political culture, but nevertheless their tort law can take a variety of forms.

Meanwhile, the ABA Journal has some interesting articles online, including one called Vive les Class Actions (shouldn’t that be Vivent…?): Europe Is Showing More Interest in Legal Mechanisms That Have Come Under Fire in the United States

Points discussed include class actions, plea bargaining and antitrust (restrictive practices) suits.

Here’s an article in German on class actions – I know I saw one recently, but this is from 2004: Gibt es Sammelklagen in Deutschland?

The final day of campaigning still suggests a grand coalition:

with a surprise last-minute surge from C & A:

Here is an anonymized CSU town councillor eating a red and green lollipop:

Some politicians of note actually braved the sparse crowds in the Fürth Füzo (on Thursday; note typical Green supporters in background, bread advert with election theme at right of shop window) – this heckler’s main words were ‘Benzinpreise’ and ‘Scheiße’:

Ralph Stenzel has produced a Fürth blog. We must keep an eye on it. I have now removed my Fürth blog, Fürther Freiheiten, completely, but I intend to have a Fürth page if I’m still in Fürth when I get round to changing to different blog software.

In this connection, I might mention the Nuremberg blog plan. It’s much easier to follow if you click on Durchblick!

I think the best-known local blog is Lisa Neun‘s, with all the caricatures. She is in Erlangen, though, so she had to choose Vach as the nearest point to her.

A tram in Nuremberg:

Here’s some German satire that went down in Austria like a lead balloon.

A couple of years ago, Mathias Schindler wrote a satirical entry ostensibly advising people not to read Udo Vetter’s law blog:

bq. Jeder unbedarfte Leser begibt sich auf diesen Seiten in die Gefahr, das Undenkbare für normal präsentiert zu bekommen. Exemplarisch sei hier die schamlose Verwendung von fremdsprachigen Wortfetzen wie “law blog”, “Archives” oder “upgrade”. Auch eine nähere Betrachtung von “udoslive” alias “Udo’s live” lässt ein gespaltenes Verhältnis zur Sprache – gleich welcher – vermuten.

The Salzburger Nachrichten now has an article on a lawyer’s weblog whose author obviously believes law blog has deeply divided the German public:

bq. Vetters Netz-Aktivitäten wecken nicht nur Begeisterung. Manche Kollegen wittern eine für Anwälte verbotene Werbemaßnahme. Ein anderer Besucher des Lawblog wandte sich entsetzt ab: “Jeder unbedarfte Leser begibt sich auf diesen Seiten in die Gefahr, das Undenkbare für normal präsentiert zu bekommen.”

I’m not sure how to reconcile ‘wandte sich entsetzt ab’ with reading and commenting on lawblog nearly every day for the past two years.

(See entry in law blog, Juristisches und Sonstiges)

There was recently a discussion in the comments at Jurastudentin’s blog on whether there is any difference between the common-law jury verdict of ‘not guilty’ and the German acquittal (Freispruch).

A commenter would have preferred the wording ‘Andreas Türck ist … nicht schuldig’ to ‘Andreas Türck wird freigesprochen’. The question arose whether the wording is different in the USA and Germany.

bq. In den USA sagt man “not guilty”, was aber noch lange nicht “innocent” heißt. Bei einem “not guilty” sind bei weitem nicht alle Zweifel ausgeräumt. Würde man aber “innocent” sagen, würde man eindeutiger davon ausgehen, dass die Unschuld erwiesen ist.

bq. Im Deutschen sind “nicht schuldig” (“not guilty”) und “unschuldig” (“not guilty/innocent”) nicht wirklich unterschiedliche Begriffe. Sie können wohl beide wie ein englisches “innocent” klingen, bei dem so gut wie alle Zweifel ausgeschlossen wurden. Darum denke ich, dass man auf der sichereren Seite ist, wenn man im Deutschen von “Freispruch” spricht, da man zwar nicht ausschließt, dass noch Zweifel bestehen, aber man spricht die Person wenigstens von den Anschuldigungen frei und entlastet sie.

In my experience the wording is sometimes ‘The defendant is not guilty’ and sometimes ‘The defendant is acquitted’ – both mean the same thing. The jury’s verdict is worded ‘not guilty’, though (although there was a ‘not proven’ in Scotland, but to go into that here would confuse the issue).

There’s a summary of the meaning of ‘not guilty’ on the site of Hugh Duvall, an Oregon lawyer who is fond of the colour green.

bq. A verdict of “not guilty” can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant (I would use my client’s name) is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of “not guilty” can mean a verdict of “not proven.” Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of “not guilty.”

The Jurastudentin discussion came up in the context of the trial of Andreas Türck for rape, and it’s difficult to regard a not guilty decision in many rape cases as anything other than ‘not proven’ (The term verdict is used only for juries, not judges). It was referred to by someone as ‘Freispruch zweiter Klasse’.

We don’t use the term ‘innocent’, but the press will, and for example Michael Jackson’s defence counsel used it. It seems to me if one were to insist on the court finding someone ‘innocent’, it would be necessary for the court to try to find out the truth, and that is something that German courts (try to) do but common-law ones don’t. Common law criminal trials are more like a battle between two sides, in which the prosecutor has to convince jury (or judge) that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here’s some advice for journalists on using the correct terms.

On the Scottish not proven verdict, see here for the history, here for a forum discussion.