The Court System A Trial

Criminal Trial Steps Jury Selection Opening Statements Examination of Evidence Prosecution- goes first, has burden of proof Cross- to discredit witnesses’ testimony/ evidence Closing Arguments Jury Instructions Jury Deliberation Verdict Sentencing

The Courts Adversarial system- lawyers represent their clients, present evidence, challenge the other side, and try to convince the jury/ judge Defendant-- the person being charged {criminal} or sued {civil} Prosecutor-- the person bringing the charges in a criminal case Plaintiff-- the person bringing the charges in a civil case

Court cases Gideon v. Wainright (1963)- Scott v. Il (1979)- 80% of felony defendants are indigent 75% of inmates had a court appointed lawyer Scott v. Il (1979)- Ross v. Moffit-

Attorneys- Prosecution Trial consul/ house consul for police File charges- type and number Broad discretion and autonomy Est. case against defendant BARD Challenge the other side’s evidence Rebuttal Objections

Attorneys- Defense Defense- represent the accused Bargains a plea deal Proves innocence/ establishes doubt Other evidence, alibis, affirmative defenses Least powerful of all in the Courtroom

(Pre-)Trial Motions Change of venue Gag order Motion to dismiss

Opening Statements Road maps of the case--- key concepts Preview evidence and legal argument “Revenge. That’s what this case is all about.” Identify players/ re-create the incident Give your version of the story Anticipate the other argument Point out holes in the coming argument

Writing an Opening Statement Like an Intro Paragraph- Outline facts Who is the defendant? What did s/he do? What is the dispute? Road map Who can jurors expect to see on the stand? Why is the other side wrong? Thesis: S/he should be convicted of the crime. Keep it simple

Get the jury to believe your side of the story. “Members of the jury, after you have heard the evidence, we are confident that you will find the defendant guilty on each count in this indictment: armed robbery and murder.” [Prosecution] “At the conclusion of this case, you will have grave doubts that Tom Smith was anywhere near the robbery when it occurred. If anything, you will be convinced that someone else did it. Consequently, Tom Smith is simply not guilty of anything.” [Defense]

Examination of Evidence Prosecution presents evidence after Opening Statements are given Confessions, photos, IDs, polygraphs, DNA… Witnesses/ experts answer questions Witnesses swear to tell the truth When the “prosecution rests,” the defense presents its case with their own evidence

Witnesses Subpoena: Perjury: Contempt of court: Witness immunity:

Evidence Ballistics/ rifling: Fingerprints Circumstantial evidence:

Objections Hearsay Speculation

Examination of Evidence Defense tries to discredit witnesses/ ev. Qualifications- attack credibility or investigative skill of the “expert,” officer, etc. Bias against defendant Mistakes made Character- money to appear/ immunity… Expertise- show a lack of knowledge Limitations- force contradictions or inconsistencies Challenge the believability Qual- bias= OJ Expertise- Vinnie Lim- line of sight, time needed to x, y, z….

Examination of Evidence Defense tries to discredit witnesses/ ev. Ask leading questions Rapid fire questions Simple questions Break complex issues into Yes/ No questions Qual- bias= OJ Expertise- Vinnie

Closing Arguments Pros- restate facts in evidence Charges Direct evidence Witness’ supporting evidence Conclude with charges BARD Def- explain where doubt exists Failed to prove BARD Most common in a Defense’s closing Emotional appeals?

Jury Deliberation Discuss evidence presented Credibility of witnesses Was BARD established? Must ignore stricken evidence/ other objections

Verdict Acquittal Hung jury Mistrial Double Jeopardy The 6th Amendment doesn’t require unanimous verdicts or 12 person juries