Trial Process

Trial Process 

Name:

Institution:

Instructor:

Course:

Date:

Outline

  1.                                    I.      Sequence of Events in a Criminal Case
  2.                                 II.      Level of Proof Required in Criminal and Civil Cases
  3.                              III.      Challenges of a Juror during Voir Dire
  4.                              IV.      Duties of a Judge in a Criminal Court
  5.                                 V.      Definition of Reasonable Doubt
  6.                              VI.      Role of the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney

a)      Role of Prosecutor

b)      Role of Defense Attorney

  1.                           VII.      Questions Allowed in Direct and Cross-examination
  2.                        VIII.      Requirements of a Witness
  3.                              IX.      Order of Closing Argument

 

Trial Process

I. Sequence of Events in a Criminal Case

            The sixth amendment of the US constitution provides offenders and suspects with the right to a speedy and public trial. The prosecutors and the defense usually decide to proceed with a trial when they perceive that they have enough strong arguments to argue their case. The trial is meant to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence by examining all the evidence and the facts presented to the court. During a trial, the prosecutors usually present their cases before the court. The trial begins with an opening statement. The prosecution begins since it has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime they have been accused of. The defense can choose to give the opening statement after the prosecution although it is not mandatory. The defense attorneys can give their opening statement after the prosecutors have presented their evidence. The prosecution begins presenting its evidence after the opening statement since it bears the burden of persuasion.

The prosecution begins direct examination of the first witness. The defense attorney then cross-examines the same witness. The prosecution then conducts redirect examination of the same witness to clarify any issues that might have arisen during cross-examination. When the prosecutor rests, the defense attorney presents the defendants case to the one trying the case. He presents evidence and witnesses to prove that the defendant is innocent. The defense attorney begins with the direct examination of the witness, and the prosecution follows with the cross-examination. The defense attorney then conducts redirect examination on his client. The procedure is repeated until there are no further witnesses and then the defense rests.

During the trial, both sides may object to the questions being asked due to various reasons such as inadequate knowledge on the part of the witness. The judge can decide to sustain or overrule the objection. After the testimonies, the attorneys on both sides prepare the closing arguments, which are addressed to the one trying the case. The defendant has a right to a jury, although he or she can choose to be tried by a judge. Once all the evidence has been presented, the judge informs the jury about the law it should consider when deciding a verdict. The jury goes to deliberate and then comes with a verdict. The jury then notifies the judge on the verdict and the judge instructs them to read the verdict to the court. The defendant is free to go when he or she is acquitted but sentenced if found guilty of the crime (Ferdico et al., 2008).

II Level of Proof Required in Criminal and Civil Cases

            The level of proof at a criminal trial rests on the government. The defendant in a criminal trial does not have to prove that he is innocent. In a civil trial, the level of proof is usually on the plaintiff. The level of proof at a criminal trial is usually stronger than in a civil trial. The prosecution has to leave no doubt in the jury’s mind that the defendant is guilty of the crime. The jury and the judge presiding over criminal cases must be convinced of the defendants’ guilt, and this is usually harder to do than in civil cases where the plaintiffs have to convince the judge that they have the most convincing arguments. The level of proof in a criminal case must be beyond reasonable doubt. Civil cases require preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence.  Proof beyond reasonable doubt is usually characterized as 95% certainty, while preponderance of evidence is usually characterized as 51% certainty. Clear and convincing evidence in civil cases is characterized as 75% certainty (Whitman, n. d.)

III. Challenges of a Juror during Voir Dire

            The juror faces a challenge for cause and peremptory challenge during Voir Dire. The difference between a challenge for cause and peremptory challenges is that lawyers do not have to give any reason for excusing a juror from a case in a peremptory challenge. A challenge for cause applies when a lawyer perceives that a juror may be biased in a particular case. The lawyer can then excuse the juror for that reason. Jurors are exempted for cause for different reasons. Some of the reasons include eligibility, relationship with any of the parties, mental or physical incapacity, and actual bias among other reasons. Lawyers must give credible reasons why they have exempted jurors if they exercise challenge for cause.

IV. Duties of a Judge in a Criminal Court

            In criminal trials, the judges ensure that the trial is conducted fairly. Judges listen to the evidence presented in the court, and they examine the facts. Judges decide whether to convict or acquit a defendant. When the defendant is convicted, the judges announce the sentence the defendant will receive. Judges are also involved in the selection of the jury, and they direct the jurors concerning their duties in the trial. They advise the jurors concerning the evidence. They tell the jurors which type of evidence is acceptable, and which one they should disregard. They remind and inform the jury concerning the applicable laws in a particular case. The judges also control the direction of the trial, and they ensure that both the prosecutor and the defendants get equal opportunities. When declaring their verdict, the judges highlight their reasons for their decision. The judges also help in maintaining order by settling procedural questions and guiding the conduct in the courtroom (Siegel, 2011).

V. Definition of Reasonable Doubt

            Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof, and it is used in criminal trials. It refers to the standard by which prosecutors must convince the judge or the jury that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. It refers to convincing proof that is based upon reason, which is convincing enough that the jury and the judge can use it to make decisions without hesitating. Whoever is trying the case has to be not only sure but also certain that the defendant is guilty before rendering a sentence.

VI. Role of the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney

a) Role of Prosecutor

The prosecutor represents the state in criminal cases and they bring the cases before the judge. They investigate the case against the defendant, and they use the evidence collected to argue their case before the court. The prosecutors decide which charges they will bring against the offenders. They can change the charge as the evidence directs them to do. They advise the victims and the witnesses concerning the trial proceedings. They review the testimony planned by the witnesses, and they prepare them accordingly. In case they perceive that they do not have a strong case against the defendant, they work with the defense attorneys to arrange a plea bargain (Siegel, 2011).

b) Role of Defense Attorney

The main duty of defense attorneys is to protect their clients and defend them in court. The attorneys present evidence in court to prove that their clients are innocent. They protect their clients during proceedings, and give them legal counsel. They train them on how they should answer specific questions. They protect their clients and the witnesses when the prosecutor seems to be harassing them during cross-examination by asking questions that are out of context. The defense attorney investigates the incident that landed the accused in court so that he can gather evidence. The defense lawyers usually interview all the people deemed relevant to the case such as the police, witnesses and the client. They prepare the case for the trial, and devise the strategies they are going to use. They determine the time that is most appropriate for the appeal, file and argue motions in court (Siegel, 2009).

VII. Questions allowed in Direct and Cross-examination

            The prosecution presents its case in chief by calling and examining lay and expert witnesses and presenting physical evidence in court. The main objective of doing this is to argue a case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution presents the evidence in a clearly understood manner. The prosecutors have to be convincing enough and present evidence in a memorable and legally sufficient manner. Leading questions are the norm during cross-examination, but they not allowed during direct examination. They suggest specific answers, giving the defense attorney a chance to present details which may be regarded as evidence, and which the witness will clarify in the end.

VIII. Requirements of a Witness

            A witness is expected to tell the truth in court. Witnesses should not be evasive when giving their testimony. Lying under oath is a criminal offence and the witness can be prosecuted because of this. Witnesses should only give account of what they experienced first hand. They should not base their testimony on hearsay. They should testify what they know, and not speculate. Witnesses testify of what they have heard, seen and experienced. Witnesses should answer the questions addressed to them. They are expected to seek clarification if they did not understand the question clearly. Witnesses should not guess answers, and they should admit to their lack of knowledge if they do not have an answer to a question. Sometimes an expert witness, such as a doctor, is called in to testify in a case. Expert witnesses are professionals with advanced training and knowledge, and who have specialized in a specific area. This type of witness need not be there when the crime was committed in order for them to testify in court. The expert witness interprets the meaning of the facts presented and helps the parties involved to understand the facts. Expert witnesses should use simple language when giving their testimony. Expert witnesses can sometimes overuse of technical language. Witnesses should not discuss their testimonies with other witnesses as this can jeopardize the outcome of the case (Gaines & Miller, 2011).

IX. Order of Closing Argument

            The defense attorneys and the prosecutors make their closing arguments with an aim of convincing the judge or jury. They usually do this after they have presented all their evidence. Closing arguments are important since they convince some of the jurors who might not have made up their mind. The attorneys not only appeal to the judge and the jurors using facts, but they also make strong and emotional appeals. Neither the prosecutors nor the defense attorneys can present new evidence when making their closing arguments.

References

Ferdico, N. J., Fradella, F. H., & Totten, D. C. (2008). Criminal procedure for the criminal justice professional. New York, NY: Cengage Learning

Gaines, K. L., & Miller, L. R. (2011). Criminal justice in action: The core. New York, NY: Cengage Learning

Siegel, J. L. (2009). Introduction to criminal justice. New York, NY: Cengage Learning

Siegel, J. L. (2011). Criminology. New York, NY: Cengage Learning

Whitman, G. (n. d.). Twelve things debaters should know about the law. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/aboutlaw.html

 

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]