Trial Competency Training Curriculum - Home • County · PDF file ·...

Trial Competency Training

Curriculum

Prepared by J. Holden, PhD

From Start-Up Funds Provided by

Community Placement Program of

Redwood Coast Regional Center

Ukiah, CA

November, 2011

Revised December, 2015

Pre-Training Protocol

The process starts once the Court orders competency training to a defendant following the

Judge's finding that the prospective Student is not competent to stand trial. At that point a

formal clinical assessment of the Student’s competency will have been performed by at least one

psychiatrist and/or psychologist, and that report should be reviewed as soon as possible after

receiving the Court order.

At the fiirst meeting with the Student, the Mental Health Competency Trainer should introduce

yourself. Explain that you are a Teacher, and the Judge at the courthouse wants you to teach the

Student about the law, so the Student will be able protect himself/herself from the charges

against him/her. Tell the Student that you will be talking to him/her and teaching him/her about

the law. Tell the Student it will be like going to law class, so he/she can make good decisions

about the charges against him/her. Tell the Student the consequences of not participating in the

training, which typically are that the Student will have to be sent to a secure competency training

program (typically Napa or Metropolitan State Hospital) and stay until competency is attained

or for the maximum sentence time punishable for the charges, whichever is shorter. Then ask the

Student if he/she wishes to participate in the present training.

Tell the Student that "before we start law class, let's talk about when and where we'll meet for

these classes". (Try to do sessions at the Student's optimal pace and frequency--once or twice a

day if appropriate and workable). For long sessions be willing to take breaks or cut a session

short when the Student is exhibiting frustration or mental fatigue).

Competency To Stand Trial Curriculum Page

2

Explain legal confidentiality to the Student. Completely assure the Student that you will not tell

anyone the particulars of what the Student tells you without his/her permission. Take time to list

the people you will not talk to about anything the Student tells you-- the judge, the police, the

lawyer, any victims or witnesses,, people he knows, etc.

Ask if the Student has any questions or anything he/she wants to say before you get started. Be

friendly and supportive with the Student, but follow the curriculum and be patient if the Student

has difficulties with particular words or concepts. Tell him/her there is no hurry, that it's okay

to make mistakes while we learn, and that he/she can ask you questions at any time. Praise even

incorj.rect response attempts, while giving gentle correction. "Good try, but…"

Begin by administering the Competency Assessment to Stand Trial – MR (CAST) instrument to

the Student. This is then used as a pre-training baseline of the Student’s existing competency in

the areas of knowledge of legal concepts and terminology, ability to assist defense counsel or

formulate a rational defense him/herself, and understanding of case events. The CAST

instrument was originally devised to assess defendants with intellectual disabilities, and is

written as a 6th

grade level. But since the standard for competency is the same regardless of

psychiatric, intellectual, or disability status, the CAST is more broadly applicable to Students

with psychiatric, neurological, or educational deficits. After completing the following

curriculum, including chapter quizzes and final comprehensive exam, the CAST is again

administered to the Student to attain a post-training competency score. Although the test

publisher recommends 70% correct as a passing score, 80% is used for purposes of this training

program.

The key concepts and items for each chapter of the curriculum are in boldface. It is suggested

to ask the Student the meaning of the terms in his/her own words as you cover them in the

training. A glossary of legal terms is included at the end of this curriculum for helping define

terms for the Student.

Mark the place in the curriculum where a session finishes, and record the date and time when

each session begins and ends on the form. Chapters signify suggested breaking points in part 1

("Basic Legal Concepts and Processes"). A Student might do one or more chapters in a session,

depending on how tired or frustrated the Student is getting. At the end of each chapter are

questions to assess the Student's understanding of material covered in that chapter. Mark the

Student's answer on the forms and use incorrect responses for the focus of further instruction.

The use of props or visual aids, taking the Student to an actual courtroom to observe, or

discussing legal processes while watching a courtroom program on tv or VCR or DVD may be

other ways to effectively teach the Student if the straight didactic method is not working well.

Learning styles differ between individuals and you will need to learn the Student's most effective

communication modes. Games such as crossword puzzles, word search, or “terms game”, or

tools such as flash cards or role-playing or discussion of forensic newspaper articles have also

been suggested.


3

If the Student wants your advice or opinion about his/her case and/or associated decisions,

remind the Student that you are a teacher, not a lawyer, and that you are not allowed to give

advice or opinions, but that the Student should talk to his/her defense attorney for legal advice.

The teaching narrative below is just a suggested presentation of the major words and concepts,

and you are free to present the core boldface material in whatever format is most conducive to

the Student's learning. Wherever feasible, follow the flow of content described below, but feel

free to present the material in whatever way is best for you and that Student. Review the

material as presented below by yourself before each teaching session, familiarize yourself with

the subject matter to be covered.

You will see in the last section of the exam that the Student is asked to remember facts regarding

his/her own case. It will be important for you to read the police report yourself in trying to judge

the accuracy of the Student's recollections. It is important that the Student understand what the

police are alleging, whether or not it agrees with the Student’s version of events.

Each chapter of the curriculum has an associcated quize. A passing score on a chapter quiz

means at least 80% correct. Once the Student has passed all 13 chapter quizzes (4 or 5 correct

on quizzes #1-12, and 8-10 correct on quiz #13), administer the complete “Competency Training

‘Law Class’ Exam”. Directions and passing scores for each part of this exam are given on the

Examiner’s Form. If a Student is unable to pass a chapter quiz after five attempts move on to

the next chapter. After that chapter quiz is passed, return to the previous chapter.


4

Course Content: Suggested Presentation

Part 1: Basic Legal Concepts and Processes

CHAPTER 1: Laws, Crimes, Police, Reasonable Suspicion, Evidence, Arrest

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

laws: laws are rules

commit a crime: when a person breaks a law

misdemeanor: a small crime

felony: a big crime

witness: someone who saw a crime

victim: the person who the crime is against

police: people with badges and uniforms who arrest someone if they think he/she

committed a crime.

law enforcement: the people who enforce the law, like the police and the people who

work in the courts.

reasonable suspicion: when a person has a reason to suspect that someone committed a

crime.

arrest: when the police accuse someone of committing a crime and take the person into

custody.

accusation: when one person says that another person committed a crime.

evidence: things that make it look like a crime was committed by someone, like a gun or

a surveillance video, or DNA, or a witness.

charge: the name of the crime that a person is accused of committing.

custody: when the police detain a person and the person has to go with the police to jail.

inmate: a person in jail or prison.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In this chapter, we are going to learn about what a law and a crime

are. And we are going to be learning about what the police do when they have a reason to

believe that someone broke a law.

When people first started living together, they had to make up rules about what it was okay to do

and what it was not okay to do. Like a rule saying it's not okay to hurt other people, or to steal

things from them. And they called these rules "laws". A law is a rule, that tells us what is okay

and what is not okay to do. Laws are rules.

Laws tell us what is okay to do and what is not okay to do. They tell us it's not okay to hurt other

people, or to steal from other people, or not to drive a car without a driver's license. There are

lots of laws, telling us what we're supposed to do and not supposed to do.


5

If you go against a law, they say you "broke" the law. If you break a law, they say you have

"committed a crime". And if you commit a crime you could get punished. There are people

who we are going to talk about -- police and judges -- whose job it is to find out if someone

committed a crime, and to punish the person if he/she did.

Some crimes are not very serious and some are very serious. They call small crimes

"misdemeanors" and they call big serious crimes "felonies ". Like there's a law saying it's not

okay to spit on the sidewalk, and if I break that law it will only be a misdemeanor crime and

there will only be a little punishment. But if I break a real serious law, like murdering someone,

it will be a felony crime and the punishment can be very big, like making me be locked-up in a

prison for the rest of my life. Let's practice that: A big crime is called a what? And a little

crime is called a what? Repeat until Student can give correct answers. Ask them if the crime(s)

they are charged with are misdemeanor(s) or felon(ies), and instruct them in the correct answer

is they are mistaken.

So the law is very important to everybody. Let's learn more about it. Let's pretend there's a guy

named Joe. And Joe is at his friend Susan's house. And while his friend is talking on the phone

in the kitchen, Joe sees in another room that there's a whole bunch of money on a chair, that must

have fallen out of someone's pocket when they were sitting in the chair. And Joe thinks how

great it would be to have all that money, so he could buy CDs and cakes and fancy shoes and lots

of other great stuff, if he had all that money. And so he takes the money and puts it in his

pocket.

Does the law say that it's okay for Joe to take things that don't belong to us? No, the law calls

that "stealing", and if you or I steal something, we could get punished. Let's see what happens to

Joe.

When Joe put the money in his pocket, he turned around and saw his friend Susan standing in the

doorway looking at him. Susan says, "You stole my money. That's against the law."

It looks like Joe committed a crime, doesn't it? And Susan saw it happen, so she is a "witness".

A witness is someone who saw a crime happen. It looks like Susan is also the "victim" of the

crime, because the victim is the person who the crime is against. Like if someone stole your

money, you would be the victim of that crime.

When you are a victim of a crime or you are a witness of a crime, you are usually supposed to

call the police and report the crime, which means you tell them about the crime. Police are part

of what's called "law enforcement", because their job is to enforce the law. That means they are

supposed to see if it looks like a crime has happened. If they have a reasonable suspicion that a

crime has happened, they are supposed to arrest the person who they think committed the crime.

That means a police officer has to have a reason to accuse someone of committing a crime and

putting them in jail. Let's see how that happens with Joe.

After Susan saw what Joe did, Susan called the police. A police officer came to Susan's house,

and asked her what happened. Susan told the police officer that she saw Joe put the money in his


6

pocket and she accused Joe of stealing it. The police officer told Joe to show him what was in

his pocket, so Joe took the money out of his pocket and showed it to the police officer. The

police officer took the money, because the money was "evidence". Evidence is something that

was part of a crime. If I burn a house down, the matches I used could be evidence. If I stole a

car, a surveillance video of me stealing the car would be evidence. If the police found my blood

or my DNA next to a dead body, my blood or DNA could be evidence that I killed the person.

In Joe's case, Susan is the witness and the money is the evidence. The police officer now has

reason to believe that Joe stole Susan's money, and because stealing is a crime, it is the police

officer's job to arrest Joe. This means the police officer is supposed to charge Joe with a crime,

which means telling Joe what crime the police officer thinks Joe did. The police officer might

say, "Joe, I charge you with stealing Susan's money. Because stealing is a crime, I am placing

you under arrest." When the police officer arrests Joe, he takes Joe into custody, which means

that Joe has to go to jail. People in jail are called inmates, and so now Joe is a jail inmate.


7

Chapter 1 Questions:

1. . Which one of these is true:

a. A felony is a small crime.

b. A misdeameanor is a small crime.

c. A misdeameanor is a large crime.

2. A crime is when:

a. you say something wrong

b. you forget something

c. you break a law

3. A witness is someone:

a. who arrests people

b. who was sleeping when the crime happened

c. who saw the crime happen

4. A law is:

a. an idea

b. a rule

c. a story

5. A police officer can arrest someone if:

a. the officer has a reason to suspect that the person has committed a crime

b. the officer doesn’t like the person

c. the officer wants to get the person in trouble


8

CHAPTER 2: Miranda Rights, Attorneys, Perjury, False Evidence, False Witness, False

Arrest

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

rights: freedoms and choices that the law says the people get to have.

false evidence: evidence that isn’t what it’s supposed to be.

false witness: a witness who does not tell the truth.

perjury: the name of the crime for not telling the truth in court.

false arrest: when someone is arrested for no reason.

Miranda Rights: the rights the police have to tell you before they can ask you any

questions: the Miranda Rights are--

right to remain silent: the right to not answer any of the police’s questions.

right to talk to a lawyer: the right to talk to a lawyer before deciding whether

to talk to the police.

lawyer or attorney: a person who went to law school for a long time and studied the

law and how it works, who is allowed to speak to the judge and ask questions in

court.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In this chapter we are going to learn about our rights, and how we

can use them to protect ourselves from the law being unfair to us.

Now, Joe may be jail, but he still has some rights. Rights are things that the law says we are

allowed to do or to have. We all have legal rights that protect us against things like false

witnesses, or false evidence, or false arrest. A false witness is someone who tells lies about what

they saw, and if someone does that the law can punish them for lying, which is called perjury.

False evidence is when the evidence isn't what it's supposed to be, like if a photo of someone

else was supposed to be a photo of you it would be false evidence. And false arrest is if

someone gets arrested for no reason or for false reasons.

Now, first of all, we have the right to ask the police why we are being arrested. The police

officer has to have a good reason, like witnesses or evidence, to arrest us. They can't just arrest

us because they don't like us or because they are mad at us or because they want to make us

unhappy. They can only arrest us if they have a good reason to think we committed a crime.

They have to have what's called a "reasonable suspicion" to think we committed a crime, based

on a good reason.

When a police officer arrests us, the police officer is supposed to tell us right away about some

of our legal rights, called our "Miranda Rights". These are rights that protect us if we get in

trouble with the police. Let's learn about our Miranda Rights.

The police officer is supposed to tell us the rights we have to protect ourselves. The police

officer is supposed to tell us that we have the right to remain silent. This is a very important

right. It means we have the right to not tell the police anything except our name and where we

live. Except for that, we have the right to remain silent, which means we don't have to talk to the

police officer or anyone else. If the police officer asks us a question, like "What happened


9

here?" or "Did you do this?", we don't have to answer the police officer. Or if you go to court

and they want to talk with you and ask you what happened, you can say "No, I don't want to talk

with you." You have the right to not say anything. That's called the right to remain silent.

And that's very important. Most smart people will tell us that if a police officer or a court want

to talk to us, it's best to say, "No". If you are arrested, you will get a lawyer who is on your side,

who you can talk to. But until you've talked with your lawyer, it's usually best not to talk to

anyone else. Not to the police, or to anybody at the jail, or to your friends or family, even if they

ask you. It's best to talk only to your lawyer, because a lawyer won't tell anyone else what you

tell him (or her). And a lawyer is someone who knows a lot about how your rights, and about

how law enforcement works, and how court works, and how to use the law to protect you and do

the best for you. Do you know who your lawyer is?

So when the police officer arrests Joe, the police officer will tell Joe that he has the right to

remain silent, and then the police officer will try to get Joe to talk about what happened. But Joe

is smart. He says, "No. I don't want to talk with you. I have the right to remain silent."

Remember, you have to tell a police officer your name and where you live, but you don't have to

tell them anything else.

The other part of our Miranda Rights is our right to talk to a lawyer to protect us against the

police and the court, and to defend us against the charges that we committed a crime. The police

are supposed to tell us when they arrest us that we have a right to a lawyer. So when the police

arrest Joe, he tells them, "I don't want to talk to you. I want to talk to a lawyer."

Lawyers are also called attorneys. Lawyers and attorneys are the same thing. Your lawyer

(name) is called a defense lawyer, because he/she defends you against the charges. Your

defense lawyer is on your side, and it's (name's) job to protect you. And you can tell your

defense lawyer anything, because (name) is not allowed to tell anyone else, or he/she would get

in trouble. That's because there's a law that says your lawyer can't tell anyone else what you say,

unless you tell him/her that it's okay. So remember, your defense lawyer is a safe person who

wants to protect you. So it is important that you trust your lawyer, and tell him/her everything,

even the bad stuff, and he/she will keep it secret.

And it is important that you ask you lawyer questions about your case and the law and anything

you don't understand about what's happening. Remember, your lawyer is probably the only safe

person to talk to about what happened. Not your friends or family or another inmate or anyone,

because if you say the wrong thing to one of them, you could get in more trouble. You should

just talk with your defense lawyer about what happened and about your case.

So Joe tells the police officer "I don't want to talk to you. I want to talk to a defense lawyer."

The police officer tells Joe that he is under arrest for stealing and he must go to the jail before he

can talk to a lawyer. Do you remember being arrested and taken to jail?

The police officer takes Joe to jail, where they take his picture and his fingerprints and make him

wear jail clothes and stay in a jail cell. Did that happen to you?


10


11


1. If a police officer asks you to talk about something:

a. you have to tell the police officer anything he wants to know

b. you have to tell a judge what happened

c. you have the right to remain silent and not say anything to anybody

2. Your lawyer who is on your side is called:

a. the prosecuting attorney

b. the defense attorney

c. the judge

3. Which of these could be a reasonable suspicion that someone committed a theft?

a. The person has the stolen item in his/her pocket

b. The person looks like he/she stole it

c. The person says they didn't steal anything

4. A police officer:

a. can make you talk about what happened

b. doesn’t care what you say

c. can’t make you talk about what happened unless you want to

5. If a police officer wants to ask you questions, the officer is supposed to:

a. tell you that you have the right to remain silent and not say anything

b. tell you that you’ll go to jail if you don’t answer the questions

c. not allow you talk to a lawyer


12

CHAPTER 3: Rights to Fair Trial, Speedy Trial, Defend Self or Have Defense Attorney

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

right to a fair trial: the right to let both sides present their evidence and opinions, and to

have the judge and jury be open-minded and fair.

right to a speedy trial: the right to go to court within three days of being arrested.

right to a lawyer: the right to have a lawyer defend and protect you against the charges.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In the next short chapter, we’re going to talk about some rights we

have when we go to court.

Now remember, we all have rights. We have the right to remain silent and not talk to the police,

we have the right to have a defense lawyer protect us against the police charges, and we have

another very important right-- the right to a fair trial. Just because a police officer charges you

with committing a crime, that doesn't mean you are legally guilty of doing it. Sometimes the

police arrest someone but the police can't prove that person committed a crime, so the law says

that person is not guilty of committing the crime they charged him with. Even if Joe did commit

a crime, if they can't prove that he did it, the law says he is not guilty of committing the crime.

So if the police charge us with committing a crime, we have the right to make them prove it in a

court of law. We have a right to a fair trial, to see if they can prove that we did what they

accused us of doing. If they arrest me and charge me with committing a crime, they better be

able to prove it in a court of law. A court of law is a room where a person called a judge decides

what's the right thing to happen to us. We'll learn more about what happens in a court of law in a

couple minutes.

So now Joe is charged with stealing, which they call "theft", and he has been arrested and is in a

jail cell in jail clothes. Some of the other inmates in the jail have enough money to pay a lawyer

to defend them in the court of law, so they get to talk with their lawyer even before they go to the

court of law and see the judge. But Joe, he doesn't have much money, so he can't afford to pay a

lawyer, and so he will have to go by himself to the court of law and see the judge. While he's in

jail, one of the other inmates comes up and says, "Hey Joe, what happened?" Should Joe tell this

guy what happened? No, he should only tell his lawyer.

Now it wouldn't be fair to leave Joe in jail for a long time just because a someone said he broke a

law, would it? If somebody said I did something wrong and that I committed a crime, would it

be fair for the police to put me in jail for a long time just because someone accused me of

breaking a law? No, that wouldn't be fair. So we all have another right called the right to a

speedy trial. This means they can't just charge you with something and keep you in jail forever

and not give you a fair trial in a court of law with a judge. It means that before three days go by,

the police have to take us to the court so we can start to protect ourselves against the police's

charge that we committed a crime. Because whether Joe committed a crime or not like the police

accused him of, he has the right to defend himself and to have a defense attorney help defend

him in a court of law, to make the police prove that he broke a law by committing a crime.

Remember, if they can't prove for sure that he did it, the judge will have to say that Joe is not

guilty and the police have to give Joe his own clothes back and let him go back home.


13

So, Joe has the right to a speedy trial to get things straightened out. So the next time the judge is

in the court of law, the police take Joe and some other inmates from the jail to the court for their

first meeting with the judge. When Joe comes into the courtroom there is a lot to see. We're

going to look and see what is in a court of law. Do you remember going to court?


14


1. After someone is arrested, he/she has a right to a fair trial:

a . only if he/she is guilty

b. only if he/she is not guilty

c. always, no matter whether he/she is guilty or not guilty

2. After someone is arrested, he/she:

a. can choose whether to defend himself/herself

b. cannot have any defense if he/she is guilty

c. has to have a lawyer defend him/her

3. After a person is arrested:

a. the police can keep the person in jail until they feel like letting the person out

b. the police can decide if the person is guilty or not guilty

c. the police have to take the person to a judge in a courtroom in three days or less

4. In America, everyone who is accused of committing a crime has a right to:

a. all the ice-cream they want

b. take things away from other people

c. a fair trial

5. If you get arrested:

a. the police can keep you in jail as long as they want to

b. the police have to take you to a court within 3 days

c. the police will tell you to be good and let you go home


15

CHAPTER 4: Courtroom and Court Principals

It is suggested that the competency trainer and/or Student draw the courtroom on a sheet of

paper as this part is taught, or use the courtroom drawing included at the end of this curriculum.

You may wish to have the Student take the lead, showing you what he/she remembers about the

courtroom and the principal participants and their roles. For example, "Draw me a picture of

what your courtroom looked like and tell me who was in the courtroom". In drawing the

courtroom, use it as a visual reference for material that follows, including pointing to gallery,

prosecutor, defense, witness stand, and jury box. In the drawing, cover all the bolded items

below.

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

defendant: the person who has been accused of a crime and needs to defend himself.

defendant’s table: the place in court where the defendant and the defense attorney sit.

prosecutor or district attorney: the lawyer who tries to prove the defendant is guilty.

prosecutor’s table: the place in court where the prosecutor sits.

judge: the person in charge of the trial, who makes sure it’s a fair trial.

bailiff: the court policeman, who keeps the courtroom safe.

court clerk: the person who makes all the court appointments and keeps track of the

evidence presented at court.

court recorder: the person who writes down everything that everyone says in court.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In this chapter we are going to learn about what is in a courtroom

and what people do in a courtroom.

A court is usually a big room in a big building. In that room there's a door where just about

anybody who wants to can come watch what's going on in the courtroom. That's because we all

have the right to a public trial, which means that anybody can come watch it, to be sure that Joe

gets a fair trial. They call this part of the room where lots of people can sit and watch "the

gallery". There's a little fence in front of these seats called "the bar". People aren't allowed to go

past the bar unless the judge says it's okay. People can come in the door and sit down and watch

and listen. But they can't go past the bar and they can't talk unless the judge tells them they can,

because the judge is in charge of what happens in the courtroom. The judge is the boss.

Now on the other side of the bar in the courtroom is where the action is. Because someone has

been charged with a crime and he has to defend himself, he is called a defendant in the court.

Can you say that word? Defendant. Joe is charged with theft, so he a defendant. And because

the police charged you with breaking a law, you are a defendant. Do you know what they

charged you with, what crime they accuse you of committing?

Okay, so there is a place in the courtroom inside the bar with a table and a couple chairs for the

defendant to sit. Usually this is at the defendant's table, and it's usually here on one side of the

courtroom.

Now the police are not lawyers, but they have a lawyer to help them prove that you committed a

crime. That lawyer is called the prosecutor. Can you say prosecutor? The prosecutor is usually


16

the district attorney, sometimes called the D.A. The prosecutor is the lawyer who is for the

police and against the defendant. The person who will try to prove that Joe broke a law by

committing theft, or that you broke a law by name the charge(s). And that prosecutor has a table

and a couple chairs here on the other side of the courtroom, called the prosecutor's table.

Besides the lawyers, there are four other people who work in the court. The first one is the

judge, who sits here at the front of the court. Remember, the judge is the boss of the court. The

judge tells people what to do in the courtroom, and tells the lawyers how to make a fair trial.

He's like a referee, who makes sure everybody follows the rules for a fair trial. And after

listening to the prosecutor and the defense lawyer, either the judge or a jury decides if the

defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge decides what the

right punishment will be. If the defendant is found not guilty, the judge tells the police to let the

defendant go. Judges usually wear long black robes, and they usually sit at the front of the

courtroom, in the middle. They sit at a desk that's up higher than the defendant's or prosecutor's

desks. They sit up higher than anyone else in the courtroom, because they are the boss. And

they wear black, like referees in a sports game.

Near the judge there is usually a police officer called the bailiff. It's the bailiff's job to make sure

that everybody does what the judge says and who keeps the courtroom safe. If someone in the

gallery is making a lot of noise, the judge may tell that person to leave the courtroom, and it is

the bailiff's job to be sure the person leaves, even if it means grabbing the person and making the

person leave. If the judge says someone should go to jail, it is the bailiff's job to make sure that

person goes to jail. The bailiff enforces the judge's orders, and makes sure the other people in

the court do what the judge tells them to do. The bailiff usually wears a police uniform and has a

gun and handcuffs. Nobody else is allowed to have a gun in a courtroom.

Another person sitting at a table near the judge is the court clerk. It is the clerk's job to keep

track of all the paperwork and to keep a schedule of all the court cases. The clerk is like a

secretary, keeping track of things so papers go where they're supposed to go and the cases come

to court when they are supposed to.

Another person sitting near the judge is the court recorder. The recorder is the person keeps

track of everything that everybody says during the case. The court recorder writes down what

everybody says, or else the recorder speaks into a recording machine and says what everybody

says.

Now, let's get back to Joe. The police bring Joe from the jail to the courtroom, and Joe sits down

and watches and listens. After a while the court clerk says Joe's name and the court recorder

starts writing down what everyone says.

The judge tells Joe to stand up, and he starts talking with Joe, asking him questions and telling

him things. Do you remember talking with the judge?


17


1. Who tries to prove you are guilty?

a. the prosecutor

b. the judge

c. the defense attorney

2. . Your lawyer is the one who:

a. is against you

b. takes your side

c. arrests people

3. Who is in charge of the courtroom?

a. the judge

b. the prosecutor

c. the defense attorney

4. The person who is charged with a crime is called:

a. the bailiff

b. the court recorder

c. the defendant

5. The court clerk is the person who:

a. prosecutes the defendant

b. keeps track of all the paperwork

c. tells the judge what to do


18

CHAPTER 5: Arraignment, Pleas, Bail

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

arraignment: the first meeting in the courtroom with the judge, where the charges

against the defendant are read, the defendant gets a defense lawyer, and the

defendant enters a plea to the charges.

public defender: a free defense lawyer for defendants who don’t have enough

money to pay for their own lawyer.

plea: how the defendant answers the charges, by saying:

guilty: this plea means the defendant is saying he/she did commit the crime

he/she is charged with.

not guilty: this plea means the defendant is saying he/she did not commit the

crime he/she is charged with.

no contest: this plea means the defendant is not going to say whether he/she

commited the crime he/she is charged with.

bail: money deposited with the court to guarantee that the defendant will appear in

court for the trial if he/she is let out of jail. If the defendant doesn’t appear, the

bail money is taken by the court and not given back.

own recognizance: when the judge says the defendant can stay out of jail until the

trial is over without depositing bail money.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In this chapter we are going to learn about what happens when you

first go to court.

Now the first time you are in court with the judge, it is called an arraignment. Can you say

arraignment? It's a funny word. Arraignment. Can you say it again? Good. So an arraignment

is the first time you talk with the judge in the courtroom.

There are three things the judge is supposed to talk about in an arraignment. First, the judge has

to tell us the charges against us. That means the judge has to tell us what law the prosecutor is

saying we broke. They tell Joe, "You are charged with stealing. Do you understand that?" And

Joe says, "Yes". Then the judge says to Joe, "Do you have a defense lawyer?" And Joe says,

"No. I don't have any money to pay a lawyer." So the judge says, "The law says you have a

right to have a lawyer to defend you. If you can't pay a lawyer yourself, we will pay for one for

you."

The lawyer that the court pays for to defend people who can't afford to pay a lawyer themselves,

is called the public defender. So the judge looks at the public defender and says, "You will be

Joe's defense lawyer". And the public defender says "Okay", because that's the public defender's

job. And the judge says to Joe and his public defender, "Joe is charged with stealing. How do

you plead?" That means, "What is your response to this charge? Did you commit the crime of

stealing?"

Now, Joe and his public defender have three choices. They can say, "Guilty", they can say "Not

guilty", or they can say "No contest". The public defender does all the talking with the judge.

If the public defender says, "Joe pleads guilty", that means Joe is saying he committed the crime.


19

Then the judge would decide how to punish Joe for breaking the law. If his public defender tells

the judge, "Joe pleads no contest", it means Joe is not saying whether he did it or not. If that

happens, the judge will automatically figure that Joe is guilty, and the judge will decide how to

punish Joe. But if the public defender says, "Not guilty", then the judge will say, "Okay, let's

meet again later, after you and Joe talk about how to defend him against the charge of stealing."

So you see, the safe thing to do at first is to plead "Not guilty", so you and your public defender

can talk about what happened and about whether the prosecutor can prove you broke the law.

Because, remember, if the prosecutor can't prove you broke the law, the judge has to let you go,

whether you really broke the law or not. So at first the public defender almost always says, "The

defendant pleads 'not guilty'", so you and your public defender can see if the prosecutor can

really prove that you broke the law.

Did you go to court and have an arraignment, and did the judge give you a public defender? And

did your public defender tell the judge that you plead, "Not guilty"?

So remember, at the arraignment the judge tells us what we're charged with, makes sure we have

a defense lawyer, and asks us to make a plea. Repeat these after me. At the arraignment, the

judge: tells us what we're charged with, makes sure we have a defense lawyer, and asks us to

make a plea. Right. Repeat: Tells us what we're charged with, makes sure we have a defense

lawyer, and asks us to make a plea. Good.

After your public defender tells the judge that you plead "Not guilty", the judge says to you, "I

want you to talk with your public defender and come back to court for another meeting with me."

And the judge asks the court clerk to look at the court schedule and say when it will be a good

time to have everyone come back to court to see if the prosecutor has any proof that Joe is guilty

of breaking the law against stealing.

The last thing the judge decides at the arraignment is whether you should stay in jail until the

next court meeting, or whether it's okay for you to go home and come back to court for the next

meeting. If the judge thinks that if he let Joe go home, that Joe would get in more trouble or that

he wouldn't come to the next meeting, the judge might make Joe stay in jail until the next court

meeting. If the judge isn't quite sure that Joe will stay out of trouble and come back for the next

meeting, the judge might tell Joe he can go home in the meantime, but that Joe has to give the

court money, and if Joe gets in trouble or doesn't come back for the next meeting, the court will

keep his money. But if Joe stays out of trouble and comes to all the court hearings, he will get

his money back. This is called bail money. If Joe gives the court the bail money, he can go

home and then come back for the next meeting. If that happens, they say Joe is "out on bail. But

if the judge thinks for sure that Joe can go home and that Joe will stay out of trouble and will

come to the next meetings, the judge can let Joe go home on his own recognizance, which

means the judge trusts Joe enough to let him go home without giving the court any bail money.

Are you in jail, out on bail, or out on your own recognizance?

Let's say the judge isn't really sure Joe will stay out of trouble and will come to the next

meetings. So the judge tells Joe, "You can go home on bail if you give the court $100 to hold. If


20

you get in trouble or you don't come to the court meetings, the court will keep your $100 and you

will have to stay in jail until your case is all over."

So now Joe has been arrested and charged with the crime of stealing, he has been kept in custody

in jail until he could have an arraignment, and at the arraignment Joe was told that he is charged

with stealing, he got a public defender, and he made a plea of "not guilty", and he gave the court

$100 of bail money so he could go home until the next court hearing.


21


1. . If the judge asks how you plead to the charges and you say "I plead guilty", it means:

a. you are saying you didn't do it.

b. you don't know if you did it or not.

c. you are saying that you did what you are accused of.

2. . Which of these is a legal process?

a. going dancing

b. riding a bus

c. having a hearing in court

3. Bail is:

a. a fine

b. money given to the court that allows the defendant to leave jail by promising to

come to court for the trial or lose the bail money

c. the chains they put on inmates' hands and feet when they are in jail

4. An arraignment is:

a. a room at the jail

b. where the judge says a person is guilty and sentences the person to prison

c. a hearing where the judge says what the person is charged with, makes sure the

person has a lawyer, asks the defendant to make a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest.

5. If a person doesn’t have enough money to hire a lawyer, the judge will:

a. get a public defender

b. tell the defendant to get the money from a bank

c. tell the defendant to go ahead with the trial without a lawyer


22

CHAPTER 6: Confidentiality, Discovery

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

confidentiality: the defendant’s right to have everything he/she says to the defense

attorney kept secret.

discovery: the defendant’s right to discover and know before the trial starts all the

evidence that the prosecutor has against him/her.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- Now we’re going to learn about two very important rights that a

defendant has: the right to confidentiality and the right of discovery.

Let’s go on with our story of the defendant Joe. Before the next court hearing, Joe goes and talks

with his public defender, who is a lawyer. The lawyer reminds Joe that he is charged with

stealing and asks Joe "What happened?"

Now Joe is afraid. He's afraid if he tells his lawyer everything, then the lawyer will tell the judge

and get Joe in trouble. Or that his lawyer will tell Joe's family or his friends about it. Or that his

lawyer will get mad at him. Should Joe tell his defense lawyer everything? Yes, because his

defense lawyer is not allowed to tell anybody else about anything that Joe says. Because

anything that Joe says to his lawyer is called "confidential" which means it's just between Joe

and his defense lawyer. It's private. Secret. "Confidential". If his public defender told anyone

what Joe said, Joe could get the lawyer in trouble. Joe could tell the judge that the lawyer didn’t

keep his promise of confidentiality, and the judge could give Joe an new defense attorney and

could punish the defense lawyer who broke the promise of confidentiality.

So Joe is safe to tell his public defender everything. Nobody else will find out because the

public defender knows that if he doesn’t keep what Joe says secret, the public defender could

lose his job and be punished. So Joe tells his lawyer everything, and now Joe's lawyer knows

what really happened.

The next thing that this public defender needs to know is whether the prosecutor can prove that

Joe stole the money. So the public defender talks to the prosecutor and tells the prosecutor to

show all the evidence against Joe that is proof that Joe committed the crime. This is called

"discovery". Can you say that? Discovery. The defense lawyer gets to see all of the prosecutor's

evidence, like maybe Joe's fingerprints or DNA on the money, or maybe photos or movies of Joe

stealing the money, or maybe a witness, who is someone who saw Joe commit the crime, like

Susan, the girl who saw him take the money and put it in his pocket. The defense attorney gets

to discover all of the prosecutor's evidence. The prosecutor has to tell the defense attorney about

all the evidence, but remember, the defense attorney doesn't have to tell the prosecutor anything.

Then the defense attorney comes back and talks with the defendant about the evidence that was

discovered. Let's say that the public defender discovers that the prosecutor has two pieces of

evidence to try to prove the Joe is guilty of stealing: the witness Susan, and Joe's fingerprints on

the money. So his public defender asks Joe about Susan and about the money, and the public


23

defender starts to plan with Joe how to defend Joe against the charges and the evidence. Is it

important for Joe and his public defender to talk about how to defend Joe against the charges and

the evidence? You bet it is. Remember, your defense lawyer is on your side, and is an expert

about how the law works. It is important to talk about everything with your lawyer. About the

law and how it works, about the charges and the evidence, about what really happened, and

about how to best defend you against the charges and the evidence.


24


1. Confidentiality means that if you tell your attorney something:

a. your attorney is not allowed to tell anyone else without your permission

b. your attorney must tell the judge what you said if the judge asks

c. you should never tell your attorney anything about the crime charges

2. "Discovery" means that:

a. the prosecutor has to be told all the evidence that the defense has

b. the prosecutor doesn't have to show the defense any of the prosecutor's evidence

c. the defense has the right to see all the evidence that the prosecutor has ahead of

time.

3. If your attorney doesn't keep the promise of confidentiality:

a. there is nothing you can do about it

b. you can ask the judge to give you a new attorney and ask the judge to punish the

lawyer

c. the judge has to drop all the charges against you

4. Your defense attorney:

a. is against you

b. wants you to get in trouble

c. tries to protect you

5. If a lawyer doesn’t keep your secrets:

a. the lawyer can lose his job and get into trouble

b. nobody will care

c. the lawyer will get extra money


25

CHAPTER 7: Competency

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

competency: a defendant is competent to stand trial if he/she understands how the law works,

knows how to cooperate with his/her defense attorney, and understands the

facts of the case.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In this next chapter we are going to learn about something called

“competency” You have probably heard this word used about you in court. You may remember

one or two doctors who asked you lots of questions about the law. You may remember that the

judge said you were not competent to stand trial and that you needed some teaching to help you

understand about the law.

Now let's get back to Joe’s story. Let’s say that his defense lawyer talks with Joe and the lawyer

doesn't think Joe understands what's going on very well. Let's say Joe's public defender thinks

Joe doesn't understand his rights, or doesn't understand what he is charged with, or doesn't

understand how the law works, or how to talk with his lawyer to defend himself against the

charges. If his defense lawyer or the judge or the prosecutor think that Joe doesn't understand

the law well enough to defend himself, they say they don't think Joe is "competent" to stand

trial. Being competent means understanding what you've been charged with, and how the law

works, and how to talk with your lawyer. Someone who understands all these things is called

"competent" to stand trial. But if someone doesn't understand these things, the judge can ask an

expert like a psychologist or a doctor to talk to you and then tell the judge if they think you are

competent to stand trial. Do you remember a doctor or a psychologist asking you questions

about the law?

The judge will listen to the expert's opinion, but the judge makes the decision about whether or

not the defendant is competent to stand trial. Because it wouldn't be fair to have a trial with

someone who doesn't understand what he's charged with, or doesn't understand his rights or what

a trial is or what a judge is supposed to do, or how to talk with his defense lawyer, or things like

that. It wouldn't be a fair trial if he didn't understand these what the law is about.

In your case, the judge decided that you didn't know enough about the law, so the judge said that

you were not competent to have a trial then, and so before the trial could go any further, the

judge said you need to go to law class to learn more about the law, so you and your public

defender can make a good defense against the charges. And that's what we're doing here today.

Going to law class, where you are the student and I am the teacher, and it's my job to help you

understand the charges against you, and how the law works, and how to help your public

defender make a good defense against the prosecutor's charges. And when you understand those

things, then you will be competent to stand trial and make good decisions, and you will be able

to help make a good defense against the charges in court.

Let's say the judge didn't think Joe was competent, that Joe didn't understand the charges against

him or how the law works or how to work together with his defense attorney. So the judge tells

an expert person to talk with Joe to see what he understands. Then let's say the expert says to the


26

judge "I don't think Joe understands enough to be competent". And let's say, like in your case,

the judge says to Joe, "You need to go to law class to learn more about the law". And let's say

that Joe goes to law class, like we're doing, and he learns enough to understand the charges and

how the law works and how to cooperate with his defense attorney. Once you understand these

things, I will tell the judge that I think you are competent. If the judge thinks you are competent

too, the judge says, "Okay, let's keep this case going."


27


1. To be competent to stand trial a defendant:

a. must understand the charges, how the legal proceedings work, and how to help

make a defense against the charges

b. must not be able to understand the charges, how the legal proceedings work, and

how to help make a defense against the charges

c. the defendant must be able to defend himself without a defense attorney to help

2. Who decides whether a defendant is competent to stand trial?

a. The defense attorney

b. The prosecuting attorney

c. The judge

3. If a defendant is found to not be competent to stand trial:

a. the defendant must go to a law class to try to learn to be competent

b. the defendant is pronounced guilty and is sentenced

c. all charges against the defendant are dropped and the defendant is released

4. A trial can’t begin unless:

a. the judge is asleep

b. the defendant is competent

c. the prosecuting attorney goes home

5. You are taking this law class because:

a. your attorney doesn’t want to help you

b. a judge said you were not competent to stand trial

c. the prosecuting attorney doesn’t like you


28

CHAPTER 8: Preparing for the Trial

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

preliminary hearing: the second meeting in court with the judge, where the prosecutor

has to convince the judge that there is good evidence to believe that the

defendant might have commited the crime he/she is charged with.

burden of proof: the defendant is innocent unless the prosecutor can prove that the

defendant is guilty; the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor.

pre-trial conference: a meeting with the prosecuting and defense attorneys where the

judge asks them is they are ready for the trial to start.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In this part, we are going to learn about what happens to get ready

for the trial after the defendant learns to be competent.

Now remember, we were talking about the first court hearing, called the arraignment.

Remember, the arraignment is where the judge tells us what we are charged with, and makes sure

we have a defense attorney, and asks us how we plead to the charges, and decides whether we

have to stay in jail or we get to go home until he next court hearing.

That next court meeting is called the preliminary hearing. All the main people come back

together in the courtroom. The defendant, the defense attorney, the prosecutor, the judge, the

bailiff, the court clerk, and the court reporter. At the preliminary hearing the judge says to the

prosecutor, "You charged Joe with stealing Susan's money. Joe has said he's not guilty of doing

that. Do you have any evidence to prove that he did it? Because if you don't, then I'm going to

drop the charges against Joe and he can go home and be done with this. But if you do have some

good evidence, then we will have a trial to see if he's guilty or not. So what's your evidence?

What's your proof that Joe stole Susan's money?"

That's called the burden of proof. The prosecutor has to be able to prove that Joe stole Susan's

money or else Joe is not guilty. The defense lawyer doesn't have to prove anything. But the

prosecuting lawyer has to prove that Joe committed the crime he's charged with.

Now if the prosecutor just says, "Well, Your Honor, he looks like he did it and I don't like him."

would the judge think that's good enough evidence to go ahead and have a trial? No, it has to be

real evidence, not just someone's opinion or feeling about another person. Just because someone

thinks you broke a law is not proof that you did, is it? But if the prosecutor said, "I have a

witness named Susan who says she saw Joe steal her money, and I have a police officer who says

that Joe took the money from his pocket and gave it to the police officer, and I have Joe's

fingerprints on the money." Well, that sounds like some pretty good evidence to think that

maybe Joe did commit a crime of stealing. So the judge would say, "Okay, I find that there's

enough good evidence to have a trial to see if Joe is guilty or not guilty. I am going to give both

lawyers, the defense lawyer and the prosecuting lawyer, time to get ready for the trial. We will

have one more meeting to be sure both lawyers are ready."

So the court clerk will find a day that the judge and the prosecutor and the defense attorney can

all come back and see if they are ready for a trial.


29

Now let’s take a look at Joe’s case again. Joe has been arrested and booked into jail. He has had

an arraignment in court where the prosecutor has charged him with breaking a law against

stealing, he has gotten a defense lawyer, he has plead "not guilty" to the charges, and he has been

allowed to give the court $100 bail money so he can stay out of jail until everything gets decided

in court. Joe's defense attorney has discovered the prosecutor's evidence, the prosecutor has told

the judge about the evidence in a preliminary hearing, and the judge has said that there is enough

evidence to go ahead and have a trial. And the judge has given the lawyers some time before the

next meeting, to get ready for the trial. During this time the prosecutor will look for more

evidence that Joe stole the money, and the defense lawyer will look for evidence that Joe didn't

steal the money or will look for ways to make the prosecutor's evidence look bad. Let's say the

prosecutor has a picture that shows someone like me starting to set a building on fire. If my

defense lawyer looks closely at the picture and sees that it is someone else, that would make the

prosecutor's photo bad evidence, wouldn't it?

So both lawyers get their cases together to present at a trial. And before the trial starts, they have

to get together with the judge and the defendant in court again, for what's called a pre-trial

conference, where the judge makes sure both lawyers are ready for the trial to happen.

Sometimes they call it a "trial readiness conference". One lawyer might not be ready yet.

Maybe there's another witness that the lawyers haven't been able to find and talk to yet. Maybe

the results of the fingerprint tests haven't been found out yet, or some other reason that the trial

isn't ready to happen yet.

But if they are both ready to go ahead and have a trial, the court clerk will find a day that the

judge and the lawyers and the defendant can start the trial. And the clerk will schedule for the

trial to start that day.


30

Chapter 8 Questions

1. A pre-trial conference:

a happens just before the trial

b. happens as soon as a person is arrested

c. happens after the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not

2. At a pre-trial conference:

a. the judge chooses a jury

b. the judge asks the prosecutor and defense attorney if they are ready to start the trial

c. the judge decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty

3. Another name they sometimes call a pre-trial conference is:

a. a trial readiness conference

b. a business lunch

c. a parole hearing

4. Proving that the defendant is guilty is the burden of:

a. the bailiff

b. the public defender

c. the prosecutor

5. At a preliminary hearing:

a. the judge decides if the prosecutor has any good evidence

b. the defense attorney drops the case

c. the prosecutor admits that there is no good evidence


31

CHAPTER 9: Plea Bargaining

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

plea bargain: a deal between the defendant, the defense attorney, and the prosecuting

attorney that the defendant will plead guilty in exchange for a smaller sentence

than the defendant would get if he/she went through with a trial and was found

guilty by a judge or jury.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- In this part we are gong to learn about plea bargaining. We will see

that plea bargaining is something that happens in most cases, and that can make it so there

doesn’t have to be a trial.

Now a trial is a difficult thing. It takes a lot of time and work for the lawyers to get ready for a

trial, and it takes a lot of time and work to have the trial, especially for the prosecutor, because

the prosecutor is the one who has the burden of proof. The prosecutor has to prove that the

defendant is guilty, which usually takes a lot of time and work to do. So the prosecutor would be

happier if the defendant just said he was guilty, because then the prosecutor wouldn't have to get

ready to have a trial.

So sometimes the prosecutor wants to make a deal with the defendant, to try to get the defendant

to change his plea, from not guilty to guilty. The prosecutor will usually offer to "go easy" on

the defendant if the defendant will change his plea to guilty so they don't have to have a big trial.

The prosecutor might say, I will make the charge a misdemeanor instead of a felony if you plead

guilty. Or the prosecuting attorney might say, "If we go to trial and you are found guilty I will

ask the judge to give you a big prison sentence. But if you change your plea to guilty now and

we don't have to have a trial to prove you are guilty, I will just ask the judge for a small

sentence."

This is called "plea bargaining". The prosecutor will go easier on the defendant if the

defendant will plead guilty and say he did commit a crime. Plea bargaining goes on all the time,

and almost all the time they make a deal-- the defendant agrees to change his plea from not guilty

to guilty, and the prosecutor agrees to ask the judge for a smaller punishment.

Let's look at Joe's case again. At the arraignment Joe said he was not guilty of committing the

crime of stealing. At the preliminary hearing the judge said the prosecutor had good enough

evidence to go ahead and have a trial to see if Joe was guilty or not. And the judge told the

prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney to do their investigations and get their evidence

ready for a trial.

Now the prosecutor is very busy, and only wants to do trials when it's very sure that the

prosecutor can prove that the defendant is guilty. And when the prosecutor investigates Joe's

case, the prosecutor isn't so sure that he/she can prove that Joe stole Susan's money. Because

when the prosecutor talked with the only witness, Susan, it turned out that Susan wasn't going to

be very good evidence. Every time the prosecutor asked Susan about what happened, her story

changed. One time she would say that it happened in the kitchen, and next time she'd say it

happened in the living room. One time she would say it was her money and next time she'd say


32

she didn't know whose money it was. Sometimes she'd say Joe took the money with his right

hand, and sometimes she'd say he took it with his left hand.

And the prosecutor thought, nobody will believe her because she keeps changing her story. She

won't be a good witness. So the prosecutor thinks, maybe I can't prove that Joe stole the money.

If we have a trial, I might not win. Maybe I should make a deal with Joe.

So the prosecutor talks to Joe's defense lawyer and says, "Tell Joe if he changes his plea to

guilty, I will make his felony charge into a misdemeanor charge, so he won't have to go to prison

if the trial finds him guilty." And Joe's lawyer goes to Joe and says, "The prosecutor will reduce

the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor if you change your plea to guilty. If you agree to this

deal, you will be saying you are guilty of breaking a misdemeanor law, and you will be given

some kind of punishment by the judge. If you don't agree to the deal, everyone will have to go

through a long, hard trial in court. Do you want to accept this plea bargain deal?"

Joe's thinking, If I say "no deal", there will be a big trial, and I might be found guilty and get a

big punishment. But if I still say I'm not guilty and we have a trial and the prosecutor can't prove

that I did it, then I wouldn't get any punishment at all. What do you think you would do if you

were Joe?

Will Joe accept the plea bargain that the prosecutor is offering? Will he change his plea to guilty

in order to get a small punishment? What do you think? Should he or shouldn't he accept the

prosecutor's plea bargain deal? Why?

Well, let's see what Joe does.

The first thing Joe does is that he asks his defense lawyer if it looks like a good deal. Joe knows

that his attorney is very smart about the law, so it's important for Joe to know if his attorney

thinks it's a good deal. But no matter what his lawyer thinks, it is Joe's choice of whether to

accept the plea bargain deal or not.

Joe asks his lawyer "What is the worst that can happen if they have a trial and find me guilty?

What is the worst punishment the judge might give me?" He also asks his lawyer if his case

looks good. He wants to know if his defense lawyer thinks the prosecutor has good enough

evidence to prove that Joe committed the crime he is charged with. Joe wants to know these

things before he decides whether to accept the prosecutor's plea bargain deal or to have a big trial

and take a chance of getting a big punishment if he loses the trial.

Has the prosecutor offered you a plea bargain in your case yet?

Well, let's say that Joe decides to say "No" to the prosecutor's plea bargain offer. Joe decides

that instead, he wants to have a trial, to see if the prosecutor can prove that he committed the

crime he is charged with. To see if the prosecutor has good enough evidence to prove that Joe

stole Susan's money.


33

So when the prosecutor and the defense attorney and the defendant go back to court the next time

to talk with the judge, it is for their "pre-trial conference". At the pre-trial conference the

judge asks the lawyers, "Did you make a plea bargain deal or do you still want to have a trial?"

And the lawyers say that Joe didn't want to make a plea bargain deal, so there needs to be a trial.

And the judge asks each lawyer, "Are you ready for the trial?" Sometimes one of the lawyers

isn't ready yet and asks the judge for more time to investigate the case. But usually, both

attorneys are ready to have the trial. So the judge makes a date for the trial to happen.


34

Chapter 9 Questions

1. "Plea bargaining"means:

a. the defendant wants a jury trial.

b. the defendant gets a chance to make a deal, pleads guilty and gets a smaller sentence.

c. the defense attorney doesn't want to work with the defendant any more.

2. If the prosecutor tries to make a plea bargain deal with you:

a. you should always accept whatever deal the prosecutor offers you

b. you should never accept a deal that the prosecutor offers you

c. you should ask your defense lawyer what he/she thinks, then decide for yourself if you

want to accept the plea bargain offer.

3. Plea bargaining:

a. happens is lots of cases

b. happens in every single case

c. never happens

4. A plea bargain is:

a. harder than having a trial

b. easier than having a trial

c. something you get at a grocery store

5. If you were charged with stealing a candy bar and the prosecutor said “If you plead guilty I

will tell the judge to put you in jail for 20 years:

a. that would be a good deal

b. that would be a bad deal

c. that would be okay if you could have a tv in your cell


35

Chapter 10: Going to Trial, Choosing Judge or Jury Trial

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

jury: 12 regular people from the community who will watch and listen to the

prosecuting and defense attorneys and then decide if they think the

defendant is guilty or not guilty.

jury selection: the lawyers get to ask questions of each potential juror to see if they

think that person can be fair in deciding whether the defendant is guilty or

not guilty.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- Now we are going to learn about how the trial starts. About some

important decisions you will have to make about your trial.

Now, a trial is a big deal. It means there's a chance the prosecutor won't be able to prove you are

guilty and you'll be able to go home with no punishment. But it also means the prosecutor might

be able to prove you are guilty and you'll get a punishment. And it means you will have to make

some important choices, as we'll see.

The first choice you'll have to make is whether you want the judge or a jury to decide if the

prosecutor was able to prove you are guilty during the trial. You get to choose whether you want

the judge or a jury to decide if you are guilty or not. Sometimes it's best to have just the judge

decide after hearing everything the prosecutor and your defense lawyer have to say about the

charges against you. Sometimes it's best to have a jury make the decision instead of a judge.

But in a trial it will be the judge or a jury who makes the final decision about whether you are

guilty or not. A judge or a jury. Your choice.

We've already talked about the judge, who is like a boss or a referee. Now let's talk about what a

jury is.

A jury is 12 regular people who are picked to watch the trial and listen to everything and then

decide if the defendant is guilty or not. Here's where juries come from. There is a law

enforcement worker called a Jury Commissioner. It's this person's job to get regular people to

come to the courthouse and be on a jury in a trial. The Jury Commissioner starts by getting the

names of all the people in who live around there and who are registered to vote around here.

Then the commissioner send a letter to a bunch of those people, and tells them to come to the

courthouse on a certain day, to maybe be on a jury. These are just regular people, not lawyers or

police officers, called "peers". One of our legal rights is to have a jury of our peers decide if we

are guilty or not.

When the people come to the courthouse, they wait in the Jury Commissioner's office. Then

one-by-one these people get taken to the courtroom, where the prosecuting attorney and the

defense attorney ask them questions, to see if they want to select that person to be on this jury.

This is called jury selection, where the lawyers select which ones of these regular people will be

on the jury.


36

If one of the lawyers doesn't want that person to be on the jury, then the judge excuses that

person and lets them go back home. There are lots of reasons why one of the lawyers might not

want a person to be on the jury. The defense attorney usually doesn't want any police officers on

the jury, for example, because the police officer might tend to think that police are always right

and defendants are always wrong. Or the prosecuting attorney might not want the defendant's

mother or brother to be on the jury, because they might tend to think the police are wrong and the

defendant is right. What is best is when the people on a jury are fair. When they give both sides

a chance and make their decision only from the evidence in the trial, not from feeling sorry for

somebody or from some other emotional reason.

This jury selection goes on, person-after-person, until both the prosecutor and the defense

attorney have agreed on 12 people to be on the jury. That's a full jury-- 12 people. How many

people on a jury? I'm going to ask you that again later, so try to remember.


37

Chapter 10 Questions

1. In a trial:

a. A jury decides how much your bail money will be.

b. The judge or the jury decide if you are guilty or innocent.

c. The judge can make you be a witness against yourself.

2. When you go to court:

a. Your case is presented

b. You just watch other people

c. Your doctor asks you questions

3. In a jury trial, the jury:

a. has 3 people

b. talks to the attorneys and witnesses

c. decides on a verdict after hearing all the facts of the case

4. Who decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty?

a. always a judge

b. always a jury

c. you have the right do decide if you want a judge or a jury to decide if you're guilty

5. A jury has:

a. 12 regular people

b. 10 police officers

c. 3 children and 3 adults


38

CHAPTER 11: Trials, Witnesses, Evidence, Cross-Examination, Objections

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

witness chair: the chair near the judge where witnesses sit while the lawyers ask

them questions.

cross-examination: when one of the lawyers finishes asking a witness questions,

then the other lawyer gets to ask that witness questions too.

overrule: if one of the attorneys objects to a question the other attorney asked

a witness, the judge can say the objection is no good by overruling the

attorney’s objection.

sustain: if one of the attorneys objects to a question the other attorney asked a

witness, the judge can say the objection is good by sustaining the

attorney’s objection and not allowing the question to be answered by the

witness.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- Now we will learn about how the trial actually happens.

Once the jury has been selected, the trial can start. The trial is where the prosecutor brings out

all of the evidence against the defendant, for everyone to see. Evidence is anything having to do

with a crime. There can be physical evidence, which is evidence you can see or touch, like a gun

or a pack of matches or a photograph or some blood. And there can be witness evidence, which

is when someone says they saw something having to do with the crime.

So when the trial starts, the judge tells the prosecutor to show all of the evidence that the

defendant committed the crime he is charged with.

Remember how Joe decided not to accept the plea bargain deal, and decided to have a trial

instead? Let's say that Joe decided to have a jury trial to see if he's guilty or not instead of just

letting the judge decide. And now a jury has been selected and the judge has told the prosecutor

to show the evidence against Joe that proves that Joe stole Susan's money.

The first piece of evidence the prosecutor shows everyone is the stolen money, with Joe's

fingerprints on it. The prosecutor shows everybody the money and shows everybody the picture

of Joe's fingerprints on the money.

Now Joe's defense attorney gets to talk about the evidence, because it's fair to give both side a

chance to ask questions and talk. His attorney asks the prosecutor, "How many other people's

fingerprints are on the money?" And the prosecutor says, "There are lots of other people's

fingerprints on the money." And Joe's lawyer says, "Then maybe one of them stole the money.

Just because Joe's fingerprints were on the money, it doesn't prove that Joe stole the money.

That's not good evidence against Joe." And Joe's lawyer also asks the prosecutor, "How do we

even know that the money Joe had in his pocket wasn't his own money?" And the prosecutor

answers, "We can't prove for sure that it was Susan's money. She just said it was." And the

defense lawyer says, "It could have been anybody's money that Joe had. That's not good

evidence that Joe stole it from Susan."


39

You see, this is one important way that your defense attorney protects you. Your attorney shows

how the prosecutor's evidence against you is not very good.

So the prosecutor against Joe brings out the second piece of evidence. The prosecutor says there

is a witness who saw something. Witnesses usually wait in the gallery part of the courtroom.

You might bring out the courtroom drawing to display the gallery, bar, and witness stand.

The judge tells the witness to come past the little fence they call "the bar". Then the judge makes

the witness promise to tell the truth, and tells the witness to sit in the witness chair, which is

right next to the judge's high desk.

So in Joe's case, the prosecutor's first witness is the police officer who Susan called to her house

and who arrested Joe, and told him his Miranda Rights, and took him to jail. After the police

officer tells the judge that he promises to tell the truth and sits down in the witness chair, the

prosecutor asks him what he witnessed. What he saw and heard.

And the police officer says, "Susan called me on the phone. She told me that she saw Joe steal

some of her money and put it in his pocket. So I went to Susan's house and I asked Joe to give

me the money that was in his pocket. Then Joe reached in his pocket and gave me the money."

And the prosecutor says, "Was that the evidence money that I just showed to everybody, that had

Joe's fingerprints on it?" And the police officer says, "Yes, that's the money he took out of his

pocket and gave to me when I asked him to". And the prosecutor says to the judge, "Your

Honor, I don't have any more questions to ask this witness."

So the prosecutor has brought up a witness and has examined him with questions to make it look

like Joe stole Susan's money. It looks pretty bad for Joe, doesn't it?

But wait a minute. After the prosecutor is done examining the witness, the defense lawyer gets

to cross-examine the witness by asking questions to make it look like maybe Joe didn't steal

Susan's money. Let's see.

Joe's defense lawyer asks the police officer, "Did you see Joe put the money in his pocket before

he gave it to you?" And the police officer says "No, I didn't see how the money got in his

pocket. It was already in his pocket when I first saw him." And the defense lawyer asks the

witness, "Well, did you ask Joe if he stole that money from Susan?" And the police officer says,

"Yes I asked him. But he said he didn't have to tell me and he wanted to talk to a defense lawyer

instead." And Joes's defense lawyer says to the witness, "So you don't know if the money Joe

gave you was Susan's, do you?" And the police officer says, "I thought it was Susan's because

she told me it was hers." And Joe's defense lawyer says, "But you don't know for sure if it was

Susan's money or if it was Joe's own money that was in his pocket, do you?" And the police

officer says, "No, I don't know for sure whose money it was." And the defense attorney says,

"Then your witness evidence against Joe is not very good."

So you see again how your defense attorney can protect you by showing that the prosecutor's

evidence against you is not very good.


40

Now the judge asks the prosecutor, "Do you have any more evidence to prove that Joe stole

Susan's money?" And the prosecutor says, "Yes, I want to examine Susan, because she is the

victim of the crime of having her money stolen, and she is a witness of the crime because she

saw Joe steal her money."

So the judge tells Susan to come from the gallery and tells her to promise to tell the truth and

then to sit down in the witness chair.

So Susan comes from the gallery and goes through the little fence called the bar, and she

promises to tell the truth, and she sits down in the witness chair. And because she is the

prosecutor's witness, the prosecutor gets to examine her with questions first. The prosecutor

asks, "Are you Susan?" And she says, "Yes." And the prosecutor says, "You saw Joe steal your

money, didn't you?" And before she can answer the question Joe's defense lawyer says to the

judge, "Your Honor, I object to that question. It is a leading question."

Now here's what just happened. Lawyers are only allowed to ask certain kinds of questions, and

they aren't allowed to ask a question that already has the answer in it. That's called a leading

question. Like if I asked you, "Are you still breaking people's windows?", that's a leading

question, because it leads people to think you break windows. Because if you never break

people's windows and you say "No" when the prosecutor asks you if you still break windows, it

still sounds like you used to break windows, you're just not still doing it. So Joe's lawyer

objected to the prosecutor's question because it was a leading question. There are a few different

kinds of questions that are not allowed to be asked in court, like leading questions.

Any time that the prosecutor or the defense attorney asks the wrong kind of question, the other

lawyer can say "Your Honor, I object to that question." And if the judge thinks it was an okay

kind of question, the judge will say, "I overrule your objection". That means the judge thinks

that the objection is wrong and the question is okay to ask. If the judge overrules an objection, it

means the question is okay and the witness has to go ahead and answer the question. But if the

judge thinks the objection is right and the question is not okay to ask, the judge will say, "I

sustain the objection". This means the judge thinks the question is not okay. The judge will say,

"I sustain the objection. The witness does not have to answer the question."

Usually the lawyer who asked the question will just change the way the question is asked so it

will be okay. Instead of asking, "You saw Joe steal your money, didn't you?", the lawyer

changes the question and asks, "What did you see Joe doing?" That's an okay question, because

the question doesn't have the answer already in it. Susan might say a hundred different things

that she saw Joe doing, not just stealing.

So Susan says, "I saw him standing in the living room." And the prosecutor asks, "What did you

see him doing while he was standing in the living room?" And she says, "He stole my money."

And the prosecutor asks, "How do you know he stole your money?" And she says, "I saw some

money in his hand, and I saw him put the money in his pocket." And the prosecutor says to the

judge, "Your Honor, that's all the questions I have for this witness."


41

Once again, it looks pretty bad for Joe, doesn't it. But wait. Remember that after one lawyer

examines a witness with questions, the other lawyer gets to cross-examine the witness with more

questions, to be fair to both side-- the prosecution and the defense. So Joe's defense attorney

says, "I have a few questions I want to ask you too, Susan."

And Joe's public defender asks Susan, "How do you know that the money you saw Joe with was

your money and not his?" And Susan says, "It was in my house." And the defense attorney says,

"But that doesn't mean it was your money. Did you leave some of your own money in the living

room?" And Susan answers, "I don't remember." And the defense attorney asks Susan, "Then

you aren't sure the money you saw in Joe's hand was for sure your money and not his or someone

else's?" And Susan says, "I can't remember." And the defense attorney asks, "How long have

you known Joe?" And Susan answers, "About 10 years." And the defense attorney asks her, "In

those ten years, did you ever see Joe steal anything?" And Susan says, "No." And the defense

attorney asks, "What time of day did all of this happen?" And Susan says, "It was about 4

o'clock in the afternoon." And the defense attorney says, "It says here on the police report that it

happened about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, not 4 o'clock. Are you sure it happened at 4 o'clock?"

And Susan answers, "I'm not sure what time it happened. I didn't look at a clock." And the

defense lawyer asks Susan, "What color shirt was Joe wearing?" And Susan answers, "I think it

was a blue shirt." And the defense attorney says, "It says here on the police report that Joe was

wearing a red shirt that day. Was Joe wearing a blue or a red shirt?" And Susan answers, "I

don't remember what color his shirt was for sure." And the defense attorney says, "I don't have

any more questions for this witness".

So the judge tells Susan that she can get out of the witness chair and go back to the gallery,

where she can watch the rest of the trial if she wants to. And the judge asks the prosecutor, "Do

you have any more evidence you want to present to prove that Joe stole Susan's money?" And

the prosecutor says, "No, that's all the evidence I have-- the physical evidence of the money with

Joe's fingerprints on it, and the witness evidence of the police officer who saw Joe reach in his

pocket and give the police officer the money with Joe's fingerprints on it, and the victim Susan

who says she saw Joe steal her money. I rest my case."


42


1. "Cross examination" means:

a. The prosecutor cannot ask questions to a defense witness.

b. Both the prosecutor and the defense can ask questions to any witness.

c. The defense attorney cannot ask questions to a prosecution witness.

2. If one of the lawyers objects to the other lawyer's questions:

a. The judge can "overrule" the objection and let the question be asked.

b. The judge can "sustain" the objection and not let the question be asked.

c. The judge can "overrule" the objection and not allow the question to be answered.

3. When a witness testifies in court, the witness:

a. Stands in front of the jury.

b. Sits in the gallery.

c. Sits in the witness chair near the judge.

4. Which lawyer goes first in a trial?

a. The prosecuting attorney

b. The defense attorney

c. They flip a coin to see who goes first

5. “Evidence” is:

a. Not allowed in a trial

b. Something having to do with a crime.

c. The place where the jury sits.


43

CHAPTER 12: Alibis, Closing Arguments, Jury Instructions, Jury Deliberation, Hung

Jury

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

alibi witness: this is a witness who can say he/she saw the defendant somewhere

else when the crime was happening.

right against self-incrimination: this is the right of a defendant to not have to say

anything that might get him/her in trouble.

closing arguments: these are the last speeches the prosecuting attorney and the

defense attorney give to show that the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

jury instructions: these are the instructions that the judge gives the jury about

how the law says the jury is supposed to decide if a defendant is guilty or not.

deliberating: this is when the jury goes into a jury room and talks with each other

about whether the defendant is guilty to not.

hung/deadlocked jury: when all the people on the jury can’t agree whether the

defendant is guilty or not.

mistrial: this is when the judge has to end a trial because the jury is deadlocked.

verdict: this is when the jury agrees that the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- Now we are going to learn what happens after the prosecutor

finishes presenting the evidence and witnesses.

Then the judge says, "The prosecutor has presented his evidence and has rested his case. Does

the defense have any evidence to present?" And the defense lawyer says, "Yes we do, Your

Honor." We have an alibi witness. We would like the court to call Bob Smith to be a witness."

So the judge tells Bob Smith to come from the gallery and come through the bar and promise to

tell the truth, and sit in the witness stand for the lawyers to ask him questions.

So Bob Smith comes through the bar and promises to tell the truth and sits down in the witness

chair. Joe's public defender asks Bob, "Do you know Joe?" And Bob says, "Yes." And the

defense attorney says, "Look around the court and point to which person is Joe." And Bob

points at Joe and says, "That's Joe." And that proves that Bob knows who Joe is. And the

defense lawyer asks Bob, "They say that Joe committed a crime at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on

January 10. Did you know where Joe was at that time?" And Bob answers, "Yes. He was with

me all afternoon that day. We rode our bicycles to the bowling alley and watched people bowl

and play games and we ate lunch." And the defense lawyer asks, "Did you see Susan that day,

or go over to her house?" And Bob said, "No, we didn't see her." And the defense attorney

asked, "If Joe was with you all afternoon, he couldn’t have been at Susan's house at the same

time, could he?" And Bob answered, "No, because you can't be in two places at the same time."

And Joe's public defender said, "Your Honor, I have no more questions to ask this witness."

So Joe's lawyer has brought an alibi witness for Joe's defense, and his lawyer has examined the

witness with questions to make Joe look not guilty. Because an alibi means the defendant was

somewhere else when the crime happened, and an alibi witness is someone who says he saw the

defendant somewhere else when the crime happened.


44

Now the judge says to the prosecutor, "Now it's your turn. Do you want to ask Bob any

questions?" And the prosecutor said, "Yes", because the prosecutor wanted to try to show that

Bob's alibi evidence is no good; So the prosecutor asks Bob, " What day did you go to the

bowling alley with Joe?" And Bob answers, "It was on a Sunday. We always go to the bowling

alley on Sundays.". And the prosecutor says, "Susan said that Joe stole her money on Saturday.

Were you with Joe on Saturday?" And Bob says, "No, only on Sundays." And the prosecutor

asks Bob, "Do you think Joe stole Susan's money?" And before Bob can answer, Joe's defense

lawyer says, "Your Honor, I object to that question. It is asking for Bob's opinion, and you're not

allowed to ask for a witness's opinion. You are only allowed to ask about facts, not opinions."

And the judge said, "You're right. Questions about opinions are not allowed, so I'm going to

sustain your objection. Bob, you don't have to answer that question." So the prosecutor said,

"Alright. I don't have any more questions to ask the witness."

The prosecutor would like Joe to be a witness. The prosecutor would like to make Joe get in the

witness chair and be able to ask Joe questions, like "Did you steal Susan's money?" and "Whose

money was that in your pocket?". But Joe and his lawyer know he has a very important right

that says Joe does not have to be a witness in court for a crime he is accused of committing.

Remember when we talked about the Miranda Rights? Those are the rights that the police are

supposed to tell you if they arrest you. They are the rights to remain silent and the right to have a

lawyer help defend you against charges that you committed a crime.

Remember, the right to remain silent says that Joe doesn't have to talk to anyone about what

happened, because he has the right to remain silent and not say anything. And Joe has that right

all the time. Not just when he gets arrested, but also when they are having the trial too. This

right to remain silent is also called the "right against self-incrimination, which means you

don't have to say anything that might make you seem guilty. And it means that no police officer

or prosecutor or anybody else can make you say something against yourself. You don't have to

answer any questions or say anything to anybody that might make you seem guilty of breaking a

law. So the prosecutor can't make Joe into a witness to testify against himself. A prosecutor

can't make you or anyone else charged with breaking a law say anything about it at all. Because

you have the right to remain silent.

So in Joe's case, here's where we are-- the prosecution has presented all the evidence they have

that Joe is guilty of stealing Susan's money and the defense has been able to question the

prosecutor's evidence. Then the defense got to present their evidence that Joe is not guilty, and

the prosecutor has been able to question the defense's evidence.

And now the judge says, "You can each make your final argument to the jury." This is where

each lawyer gets to try to convince the jury of their case. The prosecutor goes first, trying to

explain why the evidence proves that Joe is guilty of stealing Susan's money, and then it's the

defense lawyer's turn to explain why the evidence does not show that Joe is guilty.

The 12 people on the jury have been watching and listening to the whole trial. They aren't

allowed to talk or to ask questions during the trial. And now they are going to hear each attorney

explain why they think Joe is guilty or not. This part of the trial is called "closing arguments".

Let's see what the lawyers say to the jury in their closing arguments in Joe's case.


45

The prosecutor always goes first. So the prosecutor stands up and says to the jury, "Joe stole

Susan's money. I have proven it. I have shown you the money with his fingerprints on it. You

have heard the police officer say that Joe took that money out of his pocket when the police

officer asked him to. And you have heard Susan say that she saw Joe steal the money. So there

is no doubt about it, Joe stole Susan's money, and it is your job to find Joe guilty of breaking the

law against stealing."

Again, it looks pretty bad for Joe, doesn't it? But wait, let's hear what the defense attorney's

closing argument is to the jury. Joe's public defender gets up and says, "Ladies and gentlemen of

the jury, Joe did not steal Susan's money. The prosecutor has not proven without doubt that Joe

committed the crime he is accused of. I have shown you that there are lots of people's

fingerprints on the money, so Joe is the not the only person who might have stolen it. In fact,

there's no proof that the money Joe had was even stolen money, or that it was Susan's money to

begin with. She couldn't remember having any of her money in the living room. She couldn't

even remember for sure what time it happened or what color shirt Joe was wearing. It might

have been Joe's own money that he gave to the police officer. There's no proof that it was

Susan's. She is the only one who says it was hers, but she told us she can't even remember if the

money was for sure hers. So it is your job to find Joe not guilty of breaking the law against

stealing."

Well, the trial is just about over. The prosecutor and the defense attorney have presented their

evidence and have examined and cross-examined the witnesses, and they have made their closing

arguments to the jury about why they think Joe is or is not guilty. So now, it is time for the jury

to make their decision about whether they think Joe is guilty or not guilty.

The judge tells the jury, "Joe has been charged with stealing Susan's money. You have seen and

heard the evidence and you have heard the closing arguments by the prosecution and the defense,

and now it is time for you to leave the courtroom and go into the jury room and talk to each other

until you decide whether Joe is guilty or not guilty of the crime of stealing. You cannot make

your decision by the way you feel, you have to make your decision only on the facts that have

been presented in the trial". These are called "jury instructions", where the judge tells the jury

what they are supposed to do.

Then the jury gets out of their seats and they go to a jury room, and they close the door and they

start talking to each other about whether they think Joe is guilty or not. Do you know what that

is called when they are doing that? It is called "deliberating", where they talk about all the

reasons they think the defendant is guilty or not. And they get to deliberate in private. Nobody

else gets to hear what they are talking about, so they can feel free to say whatever they want.

Sometimes a jury deliberates for a long time, especially when some of the jurors think the

defendant is guilty and some think the defendant is not guilty. The jurors have to continue

talking to each other and discussing the evidence until they can all agree about whether the

defendant is guilty or not.


46

Sometimes they talk and talk but they finally decide that they can't make everyone agree that the

defendant is guilty or not. If that happens, they have to tell the judge that they can't all agree on

a decision. Do you know what that jury is called if they can't all agree on a decision? It's called

a"hung jury" or a "deadlocked jury". And if a jury tells the judge it's deadlocked and can't

make a decision, do you know what happens? The judge has to call it a "mistrial", because the

jury can't all agree on a decision. And that means that if the prosecutor wants to prove that the

defendant is guilty, the prosecutor will have to start the trial all over again with a brand new jury.

Or else the prosecutor can "drop the charges", which means that the prosecutor say "I'm going to

take away the charges against the defendant and be done with this." If the prosecutor drops the

charges, the defendant is done and gets to go home and go on with his life. But if the prosecutor

wants to, the prosecutor can start the whole trial over again and get a new judge and a whole new

jury.

But let's say in Joe's case that the jury talked and deliberated until all 12 jury members agreed on

a decision. When a jury makes a decision, it's called a verdict. The verdict is the decision that

all the jury members agreed on about whether Joe is guilty or not guilty of the crime of stealing

that the police and prosecutor charged him with.

So once the jury has made a decision, they come back in the courtroom to tell everyone what

their verdict is-- guilty or not guilty.

What do you think? Will a jury of 12 regular people look and listen to all the evidence and

decide that Joe is guilty or not guilty? Why do you think that?


47


1. A hung jury means:

a. the jury had decided that the defendant must die by hanging

b. someone on the jury dies during the trial

c. all the people on the jury can't agree whether the defendant is guilty or not

2. When a jury "deliberates":

a. the jurors talk to each other about the case to try to decide if the defendant is guilty

or not

b. the jury takes a break to eat lunch

c. the jury tells the judge they can't make a decision

3. If a defendant has an alibi, it means that the defendant:

a. says he was not at the crime scene when the crime took place

b. says he was drunk when the crime happened and doesn't remember anything

c. says someone else committed the crime

4. Who gets to ask questions during a trial?:

a. Only the prosecutor

b. Only the defense attorney

c. Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney

5. When a jury makes a verdict it means:

a. they tell the judge they want to go home

b. they yell at each other

c. they made a decision about whether the defendant is guilty or innocent of the crime


48

CHAPTER 13: Acquittal, Conviction, Sentences, Probation, Right to Appeal

KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS

double jeopardy: if a defendant is found not guilty, the defendant can’t be charged

with that same crime again.

acquitted: this means the defendant was found not guilty.

convicted: this means the defendant was found guilty.

sentence: this is the punishment that the judge gives the defendant if the defendant

is found guilty of commiting the crime.

right to a fair punishment: this means that a small crime should only receive a small

punishment and that large crimes should receive a large punishment

fine: a sentence where the convicted defendant has to pay money to the court as part of

his/her punishment

restitution: a sentence where the convicted defendant has to pay money to the victim

of the crime.

jail: a sentence where the convicted defendant has to go to the county jail and stay there

for a period of time.

prison/penitentiary: a sentence where the convicted defendant has to go to a state

prison and stay there for a period of time.

probation: a sentence where a convicted defendant can stay out of jail or prison but has

to follow the judge’s rules for a period of time.

violation of probation: this is when the convicted defendant doesn’t follow the judge’s

rules.

probation officer: this is the person who is supposed to see if the convicted defendant is

following the judge’s rules.

community service work: this is a sentence where the convicted defendant has to do

some work to make their community a better place.

appeal: if a defendant believes he/she didn’t get a fair trial, he/she can appeal the

verdict by asking another court to correct or wipe out the verdict.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE-- Now we are going to learn what happens at the end of the trial.

Let's say the jury said that their verdict is that Joe is not guilty. That's called an 'acquittal",

when a defendant gets a not guilty verdict. So Joe is acquitted, and he and his public defender

are happy about it.

What happens after Joe gets acquitted? Well, first Joe gets back the $100 of bail money that he

gave the court in the beginning, because he stayed out of trouble during the trial and he came to

all the hearings and trial meetings. We lose our bail money if we get into trouble during the trial

or if we don't come to all the court meetings. But Joe stayed out of trouble and came to all the

meetings and didn't run away, so he gets his $100 bail money back. He also gets back the money

that was in his pocket at Susan's, that he gave to the police officer for evidence. He gets to keep

that money, because they couldn't prove that it belonged to anyone else. Do you understand?


49

Then what? If Joe gets acquitted does he have to go back to jail or does he get to go home?

Because a jury decided that Joe didn't break the law, Joe gets to go home and be free again, and

never have to go to court again about this situation with Susan. Because once a judge or jury

finds you not guilty of committing a crime, even if they got some new evidence later, like a

surveillance photo of Joe actually taking the money from Susan's purse, the prosecutor couldn't

charge him and make him have another trial. That would be what they call "double jeopardy",

when they charge you with a crime you already were acquitted for. They aren't allowed to do

that. Once you have been acquitted for a crime, they can never charge you with that crime again.

You're free.

But what if the judge said to the jury, "Have you reached a verdict?" And the jury said "Yes, we

have decided that Joe is guilty. That he did steal Susan's money. Our verdict is that Joe is

guilty." Well, now, that's a different story. Instead of deciding that Joe didn't steal the money

and acquitting Joe, they decided that Joe was guilty of stealing Susan's money and they

"convicted" him. So we see that a jury can come to three possible decisions: they can decide

that they can't all agree on a verdict, and they call it a mistrial. Or they can decide that the

defendant is not guilty, and they call it an acquittal. Or they can decide that the defendant is

guilty, and they call it a conviction.

If the jury convicted Joe by all agreeing that he was guilty, the last thing that happens is that the

judge has to decide on a punishment for Joe. The punishment that the judge decides is called the

"sentence". We know that a big serious crime like burning someone's house down will have a

big serious punishment. But a little crime like walking across a street at a traffic light before the

light is green will have a little punishment. That's fair. Even if you are convicted and found

guilty of committing a crime, you still have a right to a fair punishment. Like it wouldn't be

fair to put someone is prison for their whole life just because they walked across a street before

the light was green, would it? We all have the right to a fair punishment if we are convicted of a

crime.

So Joe's judge thinks about what is a fair punishment for Joe, now that he has been convicted by

a jury of regular people of committing the crime of stealing. The judge has a few different kinds

of punishment he might sentence Joe with. First, he can make Joe pay money to the court.

That's called a "fine", and the judge could make Joe pay some fine money for his punishment.

Or also, the judge could make Joe pay Susan back the stolen money. That's called "restitution",

when you have to pay back the victim by restoring what was taken from them.

Of course, another kind of punishment the judge can use is to send you to jail, or prison. If the

crime is a misdemeanor, not too serious, the judge can make the convicted person stay in the

county jail, which is usually somewhere not too far from home. Or, if the crime is real serious,

like a felony, the judge can make the convicted person stay in a prison which is bigger and

farther away and with more rules. Sometimes they call a prison a "penitentiary". It's a big

word. Can you say it: "A prison is a penitentiary". Yes, a prison is a penitentiary. It's a big jail,

far away with more rules.

And if the judge decides to make the convict serve jail time or prison time, sometimes the judge

will say that time served can be taken away from the time the convict has to serve now. So the


50

amount of time a judge says the convict has to spend in jail or prison can be reduced by the

amount of time the convict already spent in jail while he was a defendant, before he was

convicted.

Another thing a judge can use for a sentence is to let the convict stay out of jail and prison, and

still live at home. But if the person on probation gets into trouble again, the person has to go to

jail or prison. This punishment is called "probation". So the judge might sentence Joe to

probation. The judge might say,"Joe, I'm not going to send you to jail or prison right now, but

I'm going to put you on probation for the next five years. That means for the next five years if

you break any laws or you don't do what I tell you, than means that you have violated your

probation, and I will make you go to prison for five years. "

If the judge decides to put Joe on probation, the judge will make Joe go see a probation officer

sometimes, and the probation officer will ask him questions and come to his house sometimes to

make sure Joe is not breaking any more laws and is doing what the judge told him to do. Like if

the judge said "Joe, while you are on probation for the next 5 years, you must go to school".

Then Joe would have to prove to the probation officer that he was going to school. If Joe doesn't

follow the terms of his probation and do everything the judge told him to do, Joe will go to jail.

There's one other kind of punishment the judge can sentence a convict to do, called community

service work . This is where the convict has to do work for a place that helps people in the

community. Like maybe at the fire station, or the hospital, or the food bank, or the homeless

shelter, or somewhere where people help other people in the community. So the judge could

decide to sentence Joe to work a bunch of hours at a place where people are helping the

community.

So let's say that if the jury convicted Joe, the judge sentenced Joe to pay a $300 fine, to pay

Susan the $200 of stolen money, to work 10 hours of community service, and to be on probation

and have to talk to his probation officer for 3 years.

That's the sentence. And that's the end of the trial. But if a defendant is found guilty and the

defendant didn't think they get all their rights to a fair trial. the defendant and the defense

attorney can say they want a new trial, because they think the first one wasn't fair. This is called

making an "appeal". There are courts that just listen to appeals, and they look at the first trial

and if they think it was fair, they deny the appeal. It they think it wasn't fair, they can throw it

out and make the prosecutor decide about whether or not to do a whole new trial. But not many

trials are appealed. And not many trials even finish, because like we talked about before in most

cases, the defendant and the prosecutor decide ahead of time to make a plea bargain deal instead

of having a trial.


51


1. . Another name for a prison is:

a. a penitentiary.

b. a drunk tank.

c. a county jail

2. If a defendant is acquitted, it means:

a. the jury found the defendant guilty.

b. the public defender proved that the defendant did it.

c. the defendant is found not guilty.

3. "Probation" means:

a. you have to go to prison instead of jail.

b. you have to pay a big fine.

c. you can stay out of jail and prison but you have to report to a probation officer

sometimes while you're on probation.

4. If a judge sentences you to spend 100 days in jail or prison, and then the judge say you get

credit for "time served", it means:

a. if you had to spent time in jail after you got arrested, those days get taken off the

100 days of the sentence.

b. if you didn't spend time in jail after you were arrested, you don't have to spend any

time in jail or prison now.

c. you are not guilty.

5. If the prosecutor can't prove that you committed the crime, then you are:

a. guilty

b. innocent

c. sent to prison

6. If the prosecutor proves you committed the crime, you are:

a. guilty

b. innocent

c. always sent to prison

7. Which of these is a sentence?

a. When they make you go to school

b. A table in the courtroom

c. The amount of time a judge says you have to spend in jail

8. A "maximum sentence" is:

a. the most time a judge is allowed to sentence someone to jail or prison

b. the littlest amount of time a judge is allowed to sentence someone to jail or prison

c. the time until the arraignment


52

9. A "fine" is:

a. how long you have to spend in prison

b. money that you have to pay to the court

c. money that you have to pay to the victim

10. A "minimum sentence" is:

a. the most time a judge is allowed to sentence someone to jail

b. the littlest amount of time a judge is allowed to sentence someone to jail

c. the time until the arraignment

Date post:	26-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangkhanh
View:	216 times
Download:	3 times

Trial Competency Training Curriculum - Home • County · PDF file ·...

Documents