The Criminal Trial

6th Amendment Protection In a criminal prosecution, the accused shall: Enjoy a right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury Be informed of the nature of the accusation Be able to confront witness(es) Have assistance of council for his defense

A Speedy Trial As a result of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, it specifies time limits for those in the federal court system. It requires: No more than 30 days between arrest and indictment. No more than 10 days between indictment and arraignment. No more than 60 days between arraignment and trial. The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee does not apply until a person is accused of a crime.

The Process Grand Jury Indictment (capital cases) Arraignment Pre-trial Conference Trial Appeal ****Approximately 90% of cases DO NOT go to trial; many defendants settle for a lesser sentence in a plea deal.

Role of a Jury Jury Trial: A trial before a judge and a jury Bench Trial: A trial conducted without a jury, in which a judge makes a determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. In Duncan v. Louisiana, the SCOTUS solidified this right by ruling that in all felony cases, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. If the defendant waives his right to a trial by jury, a bench trial takes place where a judge decides questions of legality and fact, and no jury is involved.

Jury Selection The initial step in a criminal trial involves choosing the jury. Jurors are selected from a Master Jury List in each jurisdiction. Often compiled from voter registration lists, drivers license lists, and other sources.

The Master Jury List The list of citizens in a court district from which a jury can be selected. For the most part, jurors must be: Citizens of the United States Over 18 years of age Free of felony convictions Of the necessary health to function on a jury Sufficient intelligence to understand the issues at trial Able to read, write, and comprehend the English language

Venire Voir Dire: Questioning of the potential jurors to determine suitability for sitting on the jury. The attorneys for both sides or the judge can question the jurors & each side can strike jurors it thinks may be unfavorable to its side. Potential jurors CANNOT be struck b/c of gender, race, ethnicity or other similar factors. Strike for cause: juror may be biased. Peremptory challenge: no specific reason.

A Strict Standard of Proof Beyond a reasonable doubt: The standard used to determine the guilt or innocence of a person charged with a crime. To be guilty of a crime, a suspect must be proved guilty “beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.” In a criminal trial, the defendant is not to prove h/h innocence. The burden of proof lies entirely with the state, The state must provide the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Parts of the Trial Jury selection & empanelling Opening statements (prosecution followed by defense.) Prosecution presents its case Defense presents its side of the case Rebuttal & Surrebuttal Closing arguments Jury instructions Jury deliberations Verdict

THE TRIAL BEGINS

2. Opening Statements 1. Opening Statements – The attorney's statements to the jury at the beginning of the trial. Each side briefly outlines the evidence that will be offered during the trial and the legal theories that will be used. Evidence can come from 2 places: Evidence – Anything that is used to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. Testimony – Verbal evidence given by witnesses under oath.

Opening Statements Opening statements are optional. The attorneys give a brief version of the facts and supporting evidence that they will present during the trial.. In United States v. Dinitz, the Supreme Court ruled that the attorneys are limited in the opening statements to subjects they believe will be presented in the trial itself.

3. The Prosecution's Case The prosecutor attempts to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by presenting the corpus delicti (“body of the offense” in Latin) of the crime to the jury. The corpus delicti is simply a legal term that refers to the substantial facts that show a crime has been committed. By establishing such facts through the presentation of evidence, the prosecutor hopes to convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt.

The Prosecution's Case Authentication – Establishing the genuineness of an item that is to be introduced as evidence in a trial. Direct Examination – The examination of a witness by the attorney who calls the witness to the stand to testify. Hearsay – An oral or written statement made by an out-of-court declarant that is later offered in court by a witness (not the declarant) concerning a matter before the court. Hearsay usually is not admissible as evidence.

Cross-Examination After the prosecutor has completed direct examination of a witness, the defense attorney is given the chance to question the same witness. Cross-Examination – The questioning of an opposing witness during trial, which allows the attorneys to test the truthfulness of opposing witnesses. Prosecution finishes its case………

3(a) Motion for a Directed Verdict After the prosecutor has finished presenting evidence against the defendant, the government will inform the court that it has rested the people’s case. At this point, the defense may make a motion for a directed verdict. Motion of a Directed Verdict – A motion requesting that the court grant judgment in favor of the defense on the ground that the prosecution has not produced sufficient evidence to support the state’s claim.

4. The Defendant’s Case Assuming that the motion for a directed verdict is denied, the defense attorney may offer the defendant’s case. Because the burden is on the state to prove the accused’s guilt, the defense is not required to offer any case at all. It can simply “rest” without calling any witnesses or producing any real evidence and ask the jury to judge the merits of the case on what it has seen and heard from the prosecution.

Many defendants don’t take the stand in their own defense That’s b/c the defendant would be subject to cross exam from the prosecution. On cross exam, the defendant would have to truthfully answer any questions asked by the prosecution

5. Rebuttal Optional step After the defense closes its case, the prosecution is permitted to bring new evidence forward that was not used during its presentation. This is called the rebuttal stage of the trial.

5. Surrebuttal When the rebuttal stage is finished, the defense is given the opportunity to   cross-examine the prosecution’s new witnesses and introduce new witnesses of its own. This final act is part of the surrebuttal stage.

6. Closing Arguments In their closing arguments, the attorneys summarize their presentations and try to persuade the judge or jury that their side is correct. In most states, the defense attorney goes first, and then the prosecutor. An effective closing argument includes all of the major points that support the government’s or the defense’s case; There can be a review of the evidence or testimony; It also brings up the shortcomings of the opposite party’s case.

7. Jury Instructions Before the jury deliberates, the judge must read it the instructions for its deliberations. Charge – The judge’s instructions to the jury following the attorney’s closing arguments. The charge sets forth the rules of law that the jury must apply in reaching its decision, or verdict.

8. Jury Deliberation After receiving the charge, the jury begins its deliberations. Sequestration is used when deliberations are expected to be lengthy, or the trial is attracting high amounts of interest and the judge wants to keep the jury from being unduly influenced. Most of what is known about how a jury deliberates comes from mock trials or interviews with jurors after the verdict has been reached.

Jury Deliberation No such thing as the romantic notion of jurors with high-minded ideals of justice making eloquent speeches. For the most part, that is not the reality.

9. The Verdict Verdict – A formal decision made by a jury. Hung Jury – A jury whose members are so inconceivably divided in their opinions that they cannot reach a verdict Remember, the DA can re-file charges against the defendant when the jury can’t make a decision. Verdicts include guilty or not guilty (acquittal) Then the jury is discharged.

Role of a Jury Acquittal: when the defendant is found innocent of charges by a jury In most jurisdictions, verdicts must be unanimous for acquittal or conviction. Before being discharged, either side (D or P) may “poll” the jury to find out how each person voted.

Appeals Even if a defendant is found guilty, the trial process is not necessarily over. Appeal – A process of seeking a higher court’s review of a lower court’s decision for the purpose of correcting or changing the lower court’s judgment or decision. A person convicted of a crime has the right to appeal. An appeals court doesn’t hear new evidence or testimony; it only looks at the record for flaws.

Decisions of the Appeals Court Affirm: the decisions stands Affirm: the decisions stands Affirm with modification(s): Affirm with modification(s): Reverse: changes the decision Reverse: changes the decision Reverse & Remand: changes the decision & there is another trial. Reverse & Remand: changes the decision & there is another trial.

Evidence & Testimony

Evidence Two types of evidence may be brought into court: Direct Evidence – evidence that directly relates to the crime or situation (murder weapon, etc.) Circumstantial Evidence – Indirect evidence that ties a defendant by inference or suggestion. Evidence will not be admitted in the court unless it is relevant to the case being considered. Real Evidence – Evidence that is brought into court and seen by the jury, as opposed to evidence that is described for a jury.

Evidence and Testimony Rules of evidence are designed to ensure that testimony and exhibits presented to the jury are relevant, reliable, and not unfairly prejudicial against the defendant. The final decision on whether evidence is allowed before the jury rests with the judge.

Evidence & Testimony Lay Witness – (an ordinary witness) A witness who can truthfully and accurately testify about facts and can answer questions about a situation without having specialized training or knowledge; Expert Witness – An individual who has professional training, advanced knowledge, or substantial experience in a specialized area, such as medicine, computer technology, or ballistics.

Witnesses A lay witness can only relate the facts. A lay witness cannot give information about the medical extent of the victim’s injuries. The testimony would be inadmissible. An expert witness, however, may base h/h opinion on three types of information: Facts or data by of which they have personal knowledge Material presented at trial Secondhand information given to the expert outside the courtroom

Double Jeopardy and its Limits Double jeopardy means that once a criminal defendant is found not guilty of a particular crime, the government may not retry him for the same crime. Double jeopardy does not apply to a civil suit being brought against a defendant by a h/h victim to recover damages.

Habeas Corpus Habeas corpus is Latin for “you have the body.” Habeas Corpus – a person can’t be arrested or held in custody without being charged for a crime. The suspect also needs to be brought before a judge or magistrate within the shortest amount of time after being arrested. When a defendant is found guilty of a capital crime, there is an automatic habeas corpus appeal.

Rape Shield Laws Rape Shield Law – a victim’s past sexual experience cannot be used against h/h during a defendant’s trial (for sexual abuse or rape.) These laws are designed to spare the victim the humiliation of irrelevant references to past sexual behavior that may improperly influence the jury. What the victim was wearing is also not allowed to be introduced as evidence during a trial.

Rape Shield Laws Provisions of rape shield laws: Prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence Prove consent and involves previous sexual behavior by the alleged victim with the person accused of sexual misconduct Shows that the exclusion of the evidence would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant.