8.4 Trial Process
If no plea bargaining agreement is reached, and the defendant is deemed mentally and physically capable of standing trial, a trial date will be scheduled. Prior to the trial, the process of voir dire takes place, accompanied by the filing of pretrial motions and requests for hearings on specific issues. These may pertain to evidentiary matters, legal arguments, or requests to exclude certain evidence. Simultaneously, the court may issue pretrial orders that delineate the rules that will govern how the trial will proceed. To expedite proceedings, parties may also stipulate certain facts or issues, thus streamlining the trial process. It is not uncommon for courts to encourage a final attempt at settlement to avoid the necessity of a trial. These proceedings aim to deliver a fair and just resolution based on the merits of the case. The culmination of these pretrial stages is the trial, where both legal parties present their cases, witnesses provide testimony, evidence is introduced, and legal arguments are presented before the judge or jury.
Trial
A trial is a formal legal proceeding designed to resolve disputes and determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant accused of a crime. It unfolds through a structured process with distinct phases. The trial commences with the prosecutor delivering their opening statement, which outlines the case, the charges, their theory, and the elements that will prove the defendant’s guilt. Once the prosecutor concludes their opening statement, the defense may choose to immediately initiate their own opening statement or defer it to a later point following the prosecutor’s presentation. This strategic decision by the defense allows for a calculated response to the prosecution’s narrative.
Once the defense assumes the floor, they articulate the case from the defendant’s perspective, providing a succinct overview of the evidence, witnesses, and expert testimonies they intend to present at trial. During their presentation, the defense constructs a compelling argument, outlining the reasons why the prosecutor’s case is insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Typically, this involves a comprehensive examination of the evidence at hand, the credibility of witnesses, and potential expert insights that bolster the defense’s narrative. In challenging the prosecution’s case, the defense endeavors to establish doubt in the minds of the jury, emphasizing the critical threshold of reasonable doubt that must be surpassed for a conviction.
Following the opening statements, the prosecution puts on its case in chief. This is a pivotal phase where the prosecutor presents their primary evidence, which generally includes witness testimonies, documents, DNA, and other exhibits. This stage is of utmost importance as it serves as the prosecution’s opportunity to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. During direct examination, the prosecution queries its witnesses to elicit pertinent information. Subsequently, the defense engages in cross-examination, posing additional questions to the prosecution’s witnesses. If the defense raises new issues during cross-examination, the prosecution may counter them with rebuttal evidence. Upon concluding its case, the prosecution rests, marking the conclusion of their primary evidence.
Once the prosecution rests, the defense has the opportunity to present its own case, during which it will challenge the prosecution’s evidence or introduce its own in an effort to counter the allegations. This may involve calling their own witnesses to the stand; the defense will conduct a direct examination to elicit pertinent information, followed by cross-examination by the prosecution. If key information comes to light during cross-examination, the defense retains the option for rebuttal. This dynamic exchange of evidence and examination serves as a crucial element in the trial, influencing the trajectory of the case.
The final phase involves closing arguments where the defense and prosecution succinctly summarize their cases for the jury. As the prosecution bears the burden of proof, it typically delivers the final closing argument, with the defense presenting its argument first. At the conclusion of the closing arguments, the judge provides the jury with instructions on how to interpret and apply the relevant laws before they adjourn to the deliberation room to engage in discussions aimed at reaching a unanimous verdict. All jurors are required to vote either guilty or not guilty until a conclusive decision is reached (Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020). If a defendant is found guilty, they will be scheduled for sentencing to determine the appropriate punishment. Failure to achieve unanimity results in a mistrial. In the event of a mistrial, the prosecutor may opt to drop the case, or the defendant might face a retrial with a new jury, adhering to the prohibition against double jeopardy. A recent example of this was when actor Danny Masterson’s initial trial for three counts of forcible rape ended in a mistrial due to a jury deadlock in 2022. Subsequently, he was retried for the same crime the following year (People of the State of California v. Daniel Peter Masterson, 2023) and found guilty of two counts of forcible rape (Associated Press, 2023).
Impactful Moments in Criminal Justice: Enactment of Rape Shield Laws
Historically, the handling of rape cases by the U.S. criminal justice system was deeply flawed, marked by practices highly detrimental to survivors. The absence of specific legal protections to safeguard victims allowed for numerous harmful practices, including the public display of the victim’s past sexual history, as well as victim blaming and the reinforcement of damaging myths and stereotypes about sexual assault. The cumulative effect of these practices was substantial injury to survivors’ mental health. This resulted in widespread underreporting of sexual assaults for decades (Black & McCloskey, 2013).
During trials, victims of rape were frequently subjected to invasive and often irrelevant questioning detailing their intimate lives and past sexual history. This common practice by the defense was designed to discredit the victim by portraying them as promiscuous or untrustworthy. The goal was to imply that consent for intercourse had been given based on previous sexual behaviors and undermine the survivor’s traumatic experience. Furthermore, certain misconceptions, such as the notion that only individuals who adhere to societal expectations of behavior and attire can be legitimate victims of sexual assault or the fallacy that only survivors who immediately report the assault to the police were credible, were typical arguments employed by defense counsel. Also frequently presented in court was the myth that only strangers engaged in sexual assaults, which not only contradicted research (Black & McCloskey, 2013), it disregarded sexual assaults committed by acquaintances and intimate partners.
Trials primarily focused on dismantling the survivors’ character and behaviors and placed little emphasis on the critical issue of consent. The importance of clear and enthusiastic verbal consent by both parties prior to all sexual activities was often entirely disregarded. Moreover, the erroneous differentiation between “real” rape and other forms of sexual assault minimized the severity of nonconsensual acts and discounted the diverse ways individuals experience trauma.
The lack of legal safeguards exacerbated the trauma survivors experienced. This contributed to increased emotional distress. The legal process, which should ideally support survivors, became an additional source of anguish. Fear of having their personal lives publicly judged and scrutinized, along with the anticipation of enduring vicious attacks on their character, often deterred victims from reporting their sexual assaults. Without legal protection, sexual assault survivors were discouraged from seeking justice through the legal system. The effect was significant underreporting and a lack of accurate statistics on the prevalence of sexual assaults. Additionally, several issues stemmed from the way rape laws were written, such as the requirement that rape victims prove their physical attempt to stop the rape, the allowance of men to marry women to avoid rape convictions, and the denial of recognizing rape within marriage.
The second feminist movement during the 1960s and 1970s initiated momentum for changes to the legal system. It sought to protect rape victims, create a more supportive and just legal environment for survivors, and encourage rape survivors to come forward and seek justice without the fear of undue scrutiny or victim blaming. In 1974, Michigan enacted the first rape shield laws intending to:
[L]imit the admission of the survivor’s sexual history in court as a means to encourage women to report rape and to be able to stand in court with dignity without being afraid that their past could be used as a weapon by the defense to humiliate them, thus inflicting a metaphorical “second rape.” (Roman, 2011, p. 2)
The federal government as well as other states quickly adopted these laws. Overall, rape shield laws established legal protections for victims by prohibiting the defense from discussing the victim’s sexual reputation, history, personal sexual preference or orientation, and any intimate details not directly relevant to the current case.
Today, rape shield laws play a crucial role in our legal system. They facilitate an environment that not only protects and supports victims but also helps provide assurances and security both during the reporting of sexual assault crimes and throughout the legal proceedings. These laws have contributed to increased reporting and more accurate crime statics regarding rape, which is imperative for creating public awareness and improving preventative measures.
Verdict and Appeals
The verdict and appeals process are integral components of the legal system. The verdict marks the conclusion of a trial; specifically, a verdict represents the court’s formal decision that reflects its determination of the accused’s guilt or innocence based on the presented evidence, witness testimonies, and legal arguments. The appeals process provides a crucial mechanism for scrutinizing and potentially rectifying a wrongful guilty determination.
In the event of a not guilty verdict, a defendant held in custody is promptly released, and their freedoms are reinstated. Furthermore, if an individual found not guilty had been released on bail, the bail amount will be refunded. Conversely, if a defendant is found guilty, whether by a judge in a bench trial or by a jury in a jury trial, they retain the right to appeal the verdict or proceed to a sentencing hearing. Opting for an appeal entails a formal review of the legal processes leading to their conviction. The constitutional principle of double jeopardy prohibits the prosecutor from appealing a not guilty verdict, thus safeguarding against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. However, either the defendant or the prosecutor can request an interlocutory appeal, specifically targeting pretrial rulings, such as the judge’s decision to suppress evidence.
In cases where a defendant enters a guilty plea or a no contest plea, their ability to appeal the conviction is limited, but they may still appeal the imposed sentence. It is essential that the defendant adheres to specific timelines for filing appeals; most jurisdictions mandate that the defendant submits their appeal within a defined period after the conviction or sentencing. For instance, Washington State requires notice appeals to be filed within 30 days of the court ruling (Wash. RAP 5.2(a)).
The party initiating an appeal is the appellant or petitioner, while the opposing party is the appellee or respondent. Typically, the appellant initiates their appeal by presenting arguments centered around procedural errors or wrongful convictions. A judicial panel in the court of appeals thoroughly reviews the case and delivers a verdict either affirming the lower court’s decision, overturning the decision, or remanding the case for a retrial. This process underscores the legal system’s dedication to ensuring fair trials, rectifying potential errors, and upholding the principles of justice.
Attributions
- Figure 8.25: Scientology anti-SLAPP hearing 3 Feb 2014 039 by Michael is released under CC BY 2.0
- Figure 8.26: Image released under the Pexels License
In the context of criminal justice proceedings, an opening statement refers to the initial presentation made by attorneys representing the prosecution or defense at the onset of a trial. It serves as an opportunity for each side to outline the case's facts, key points, preview the evidence that will be presented, and provide an overview of the legal arguments that will be made to the judge or jury. Opening statements aim to establish credibility, introduce relevant facts, and persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) of the party's position. While the opening statement is not considered evidence itself, is intended to establish a road map for understanding the case and to frame the subsequent presentation of evidence and legal arguments, as well as set the stage and persuade the judge or jury of the merits of their case. The effectiveness of an opening statement can significantly influence the course and outcome of a trial.
The main phase of a trial during which the party with the burden of proof, either the prosecution or plaintiff, presents its evidence and arguments to establish their case and to prove the allegations or charges against the defendant. In criminal trials, the prosecution's case in chief typically involves the presentation of witnesses, physical evidence, and legal arguments aimed at proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The term "case in chief" distinguishes this phase from other stages of the trial, such as cross-examination and rebuttal.
The phase of a trial during which an attorney questions their own witness in order to elicit testimony and evidence supporting their case. This process is aimed at presenting the facts and arguments favorable to the party calling the witness. The attorney conducting the direct examination seeks to establish the credibility of the witness and to present a clear narrative that supports the legal arguments of their client.
In criminal justice proceedings, cross-examination is the questioning of a witness by the opposing party's attorney or legal representative after that witness has been questioned by the attorney who called them to testify. The purpose of cross-examination is to challenge the credibility, reliability, or testimony of the witness, and to elicit information favorable to the cross-examiner's case. This process aims to test the witness's recollection, perception, and truthfulness, and to uncover inconsistencies or contradictions in their statements. Cross-examination plays a critical role in the adversarial system of justice by allowing each party to scrutinize the evidence presented by the other party and to present their own version of the facts to the court or jury.
The final stage of a trial during which each party's attorney presents their summary of the evidence and arguments to the judge or jury, aiming to persuade them to reach a favorable verdict for their client. Closing arguments typically follow the presentation of evidence and witness testimony and provide an opportunity for attorneys to highlight key points, refute opposing arguments, and present a compelling narrative supporting their case. Closing arguments are intended to provide a final opportunity for attorneys to advocate for their respective positions and to emphasize key points that support their case.
Found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this provision prevents a criminal defendant from being tried twice for the same offense by the same jurisdiction.
A situation in a criminal trial where the members of the jury are divided in their opinions and are unable to reach a unanimous verdict or majority decision regarding the guilt or innocence of a defendant, resulting in a hung jury and potentially leading to a mistrial.
Legislation designed to protect the privacy and dignity of sexual assault victims by limiting the admissibility of their past sexual behavior and history as evidence in court proceedings. These laws aim to prevent the victim's character from being unfairly scrutinized or used to discredit their testimony, thereby encouraging victims to come forward and report sexual crimes without fear of invasive questioning about their personal lives.
A legal arrangement where a defendant pays a specified amount of money to secure their temporary release from custody while awaiting trial, with the understanding that they will appear in court as required.
An appeal made by one party to a higher court during ongoing litigation, before the final judgment or order has been issued by the trial court, seeking review of a decision made by a lower court. Interlocutory appeals typically involve challenging rulings regarding procedural or evidentiary matters that may significantly affect the outcome of the case or have a substantial impact on the rights of the parties involved. These appeals are granted at the discretion of the appellate court and are generally limited to matters of law and procedure rather than factual disputes.
The party who files an appeal to a higher court seeking a review of a lower court's decision or judgment. The appellant is typically the individual or entity dissatisfied with the outcome of the original trial or hearing and seeks to challenge the judgment, ruling, or sentence by having the decision overturned or modified by presenting arguments and evidence to the appellate court.
