The courts chapter 13

steps of the process trail

354-355

The Verdict (258)

>in federal court jury convict 82% of the tie in non drug cases .3 quarter of the time in state criminal cases. > when judges and juries disagree judges are likely to convict and jury acquit

Closing Arguments

After the prosecution and defense have rested (that is completed the introduction of evidence), each side has the opportunity to make a closing argument to the jury. Closing arguments allow each side to sum up the facts in its favor and indicate why it believes a verdict of

Jury Instructions

Although in jury trial the jury is the sole judge of the facts of the case, the judge alone determines the law. Therefore, the court instructs the jury as to the meaning of the law applicable to the facts of the case. These jury instructions begin with discussions of general legal principles (innocent until proven guilty, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and so forth). They follow with specific instructions of the elements of the crime in the case and what specific actions the government must prove before there can be a conviction.

Educating Jurors

Attorney use the void dire for the purpose other that eliminating bias they use the questioning of jurors to establish credibility and rapport with the panel to educate and sell prospective juror on their respective theories on the case, and to either highlight or neutralize potential problem areas in the case. this in turns gives lawyers the opportunity to influence jurors attitudes and perhaps late votes.

LAW ON THE BOOKS: SELECTING A FAIR AND UNBIASED JURY

Before the first word of testimony, trials pass through the critical stage of jury selection. Many lawyers believe that trial are won or lost on the basis of which jurors are selected. Juries are chosen in a process that combines random selection with deliberate choice.

OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE

During trial, attorneys must always be alert, ready to make timely objections to the admission of evidence. After a question is asked but before the witness answers, the attorney may object if the evidence is irrelevant or hearsay (among others). The court then rules on the objection, admitting or barring the evidence.. The judge may rule immediately or may request the lawyers to argue the legal point out of the hearing of the jury ( this is termed a "sidebar conference". Occasionally, inadmissible evidence will be inadvertently heard by the jury. For example, in answering a valid question, a witness may overelaborate. When this occurs and the attorney objects, the judge will instruct the jury to disregard the evidence. If the erroneous evidence is deemed so prejudicial that a warning to disregard is not sufficient, the judge may declare a mistrial.

HISTORY OF TRIAL BY JURY

English Roots The concept of the jury functioning as an impartial fact‐finding body was first formalized in the Magna Carta of 1215, when English noblemen forced the king to recognize limits on the power of the Crown.

Popular Standards of Justice

In recent years, the importance of juries' introducing popular standards into the justice system has been associated with the concept of jury nullification - the right of juries to nullify or refuse to apply law in criminal cases despite facts that leave no reasonable doubt that the law was violated. Some advocates of jury nullification based their ideas on a perceived need to reduce government's intrusion into citizens' lives; others are motivated by concerns of racial injustice.

Jury selection

Jury selection occurs in three stages; compiling a master list, summoning the venire and, conducting voir dire.

Opening Statements

Once the jury has been selected and sworn, the trail begins with e opening statements by both sides, outlining what they believe the evidence in the case will prove. The purpose of an opening statement is to advise the jury of what the attorneys intend to prove. An opening statement must be rooted in some degree of fact. A detailed and well organized opening statement presents the jury with a schema - a thematic framework through which to view the trial.

Voir Dire

The final step in jury selection is the voir dire ( French legal term for "to speak the truth"), which involves the preliminary examination of a prospective juror in order to determine his or her qualifications to serve as juror. The prospective jurors are questioned by the attorneys, the judge, or both about their backgrounds, familiarity with persons involved in the case (defendant, witness or lawyer and even the judge), attitudes about certain facts that may arise during trial, and any other matters that may reflect on their willingness and ability to judge the case fairly and impartially.

Master Jury List

The first step in the jury selection is the compilation of a master jury list. Voter registration lists are the most frequently used source for assembling this list (sometimes called the "jury wheel" or the "master wheel"). Voter lists have major advantages; they are readily available, frequently updated, and collected in districts within jurisdictional boundaries. However, basing the master jury list on voter registration tends to exclude the poor, the young, racial minorities, and the less educated. Because of these limitations, many jurisdictions use other sources - telephone directories, utility customer lists, or driver's license lists - in drawing up the master list.

Summoning Venire

The second step in the jury selection is the drawing of the venire (or jury pool). Periodically, the clerk of court or jury commissioner determines how many jurors are needed for a given time. A sufficient number of names then is randomly selected from the master jury list, and a summons is issued - a court order commanding these citizens to appear at the courthouse for jury duty. Although some individuals fail to obey the jury summons failure to respond may result in a warrant being issued for your arrest, and the punishments may rage from fines to jail sentences for contempt of court.

Prosecution Case in Chief

after opening statement the prosecutor present the states case in chief calling witnesses and introducing other forms of evidence to bolster the prosecution allegation that the defendant guilty. The prosecutor conducts a direct examination (asking open ended question, no leading questions to prosecutorial witness focussing on questions that get at what, who, when, where, how, and why. a fundamental tenet of the adversary system is the need to test evidence for the truthfulness and the primary means of testing the truthfulness of the witness is cross examination. Thus defense has the right to cross examine any witnesses or the prosecution. Because such witnesses are presumed to be hostile to the defense close ended or leading questions ate the possible on cross examination ( such as isn't it true that....)

PREJUDICIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY

the media ability to taint the nine so that potential juror are incapable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict based on the evident presented because the pretrial publicity have shaped their opinion. (Richmond newspaper v. Virginia two trails caused the supreme court the overturn verdict on two trail due to this issue because it interfered with the defense right ti a fair trails (Irwin v David 1961, Sheppard V Maxwell 1966. the Sheppard case (kills his wife "the fugitive"

AW ON THE BOOKS: THE CONSTITUTION AND TRIAL BY JURY

the supreme court decided the ruling in Duncan v Louisiana, 1968, that the jury provision of the 6th A. were incorporated by the Due process clause of the 14th A. to apply to state court as well, Subsequent decision grappled with the problem of defining the precise meaning of the right to trail by jury and unanimous versus nonunanimougs verdicts.

the case law defining the scope of right of trail by a jury

‐ Griffin v. California (1965) the privilege against self incriminating prohibits the prosecutor from commenting 0n the defendants failed to testify during trail ‐ Duncan v. Louisiana (1969) the due process clause of the 14th A. incorporates the 6th A. rights to jury trail ‐ Williams v. Florida ( 1970) ststes juries are not required by the US constitution to consist of 12 members ‐ Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) federal criminal juries must be unanimous ‐ Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) the US constitution does not require state juries to reach a unanimous verdicts ‐ Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) Women cannot be excluded from juries ‐ Ballew v. Georgia (1978) six is the minimum for a jury ‐ Burch v. Louisiana (1979) six member criminal juries must be unanimous