STREET LAW

UNIT 2: Criminal Law and Juvenile Justice

Chapter 14

Criminal Justice Process: The Trial

Many of the basic rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution apply to people accused of a crime

Accused people are entitled to have a public jury trial without undue delay

During their trial, they are entitled to:be informed of their rights & of the charges against

themto confront & cross-examine witnessesto require witnesses to testify on their behalfto refuse to testify against themselves& to be represented by an attorney

These rights together constitute the overall right to a fair trial

Right to Trial by Jury   The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in

most criminal cases However, a jury is not required in every case, & most

trials proceed without oneMost criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleasJury trials are also not required for certain minor offenses

(< 6 mo. in prison)Defendants can waive (give up) their right to a jury trial & have

their case heard by a judge (bench trial) Jury panels are selected randomly from voter registration

or ID/Driver’s license lists (& in some states tax lists) & aim to be representative of the community

How Are Petit Juries Selected?

Petit jurors are people who hear evidence in a trial & determine whether or not a defendant is guilty

In some states, petit jurors also decide the punishment a guilty person receives—this is in contrast to grand jurors

The SummonsThe 1st step in selecting a jury is to call a group of

potential jurors to the courthouse for jury dutyMost people asked to serve on juries get a letter in

the mail called a summonsThe summons tells them where & when they

should report for duty

The Jury VenireMost people who appear for jury duty are not

actually picked to serve on a juryThe court sends summonses to more people than

it needsOnce a person shows up for jury duty, he or she is

officially in the jury venire, or panel from which the jury is chosen

In most court systems, a large group of people are summoned to appear on the same day

Each is assigned a number The clerk then calls for jurors by number to go to

a particular courtroom Once a person is sent to a courtroom, the

chances of being picked for duty are much higher Depending on how many juries are needed that

day, the rest of the people who were summoned will be sent home

You Tube:Jury Duty - Massachusetts School of Law

The Voir DireTo narrow down the group even more, lawyers

representing the defendant & lawyers representing the prosecutor or plaintiff question potential jurors

Through the questioning process, lawyers try to determine if a potential juror holds biases or prejudices that would affect his or her ability to be impartial

This questioning process is called voir dire, which means to “seek the truth” in French

You Tube: Voir Dire in Action

Removal for CauseIf, based on answers given in voir dire, lawyers

think a potential juror would be biased against their side of the case, they can request for that juror to be removed from the pool

This is called removal for causeAs potential jury members are eliminated, the

venire gets smaller

Peremptory ChallengesIn the U.S. adversarial system of justice, lawyers

want jurors who will be sympathetic to their side of the case

In addition to removing jurors for cause, it has been a long tradition to allow lawyers to remove certain potential jurors from the venire without stating a reason○ This is called peremptory challenge

When lawyers use peremptory challenges, they may base their requests on instinct & probability

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judges & lawyers cannot use peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors because of their race or gender

Each side may use up to 6 peremptory challenges (plus 1 for an alternate juror) except in death penalty cases where you get more

Seating (or empanelling) the JuryOnce the voir dire is finished & potential jurors are

removed for cause or through peremptory challenges, a jury is selected

In most criminal trials, 12 people serve on a jury & may be joined by 1 or 2 alternates

Some civil trials—cases involving lawsuits—use 12 jurors, while others use 6 jurors(the U.S. Supreme Court only requires 6)

Jury Selection: What Should You Ask?

Improving the Jury System The right to a jury trial in criminal cases was

the only explicit guarantee to appear in both the original U.S. Constitution & in the Bill of Rights that was added later

The role of the jury in both civil & criminal trials has been the subject of much debate

One argument is that U.S. trials should become more inquisitorial, meaning the judge should play a more dominant role(as is the case in some European countries)

Another argument is that the jury should be more actively involved in the case, which would improve the jury’s ability to interpret information & determine the facts

Specific Suggestions

Looking to a wider variety of sources from which to draw potential jurors to provide a more diverse jury pool

Eliminating or cutting back on peremptory challenges & extensive lawyer-conducted voir dire

Retaining the rule of unanimity & the12-member jury

Drafting clear & concise jury instructions & presenting the instructions to the jury before the trial starts

Giving jurors the right to communicate with each other, ask questions of the witnesses as well as the judge, & take notes during trial

Allowing for greater jury participation in sentencing; &

Requiring the jury to give reasons for its verdict in a written decision

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that juries in state courts need not be composed of 12 persons - they have to have at least 6 people in criminal cases

For non-petty cases using a 6-person jury, the Supreme Court has ruled that conviction must be unanimous

In some states smaller juries are permitted so long as the jury is large enough to promote group deliberation & provides a possibility for obtaining a cross section of the community

A jury of fewer than 6 persons for a non-petty offense is deemed to violate the constitutional right to trial by jury

The Supreme Court has permitted a 9-to-3 verdict in a non-capital, state criminal caseWA state law requires a unanimous decision in

criminal cases

A Jury of Your Peers

The right to a jury trial helps guarantee judgment by one’s peers & provides for community participation in the criminal justice system

These ideas are considered basic to the American notions of fairness & justice

Legal Difficulties Involved in Peremptory Challenges

“The Batson Challenge”

In Batson v. Kentucky, an African American defendant was convicted by an all-white jury in Kentucky

The defendant argued that the jury should be dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution’s removal of African American jurors violated his rights under the 6th & 14th Amendments

These amendments guarantee the defendant a jury drawn from a cross section of the community & equal protection under the law

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the prosecution from excluding potential jurors solely on the basis of race

The Court also held that the clause forbids the prosecution’s exclusion of African American jurors based on the state’s assumption that African American jurors as a group are unable to impartially consider a case against an African American defendant

The Court found that this type of exclusion practice not only denied the rights guaranteed to the defendant under the 6th & 14th Amendments, but also discriminated against the excluded juror

The Court noted that discriminatory selection procedures undermine the public’s confidence in the fairness of our justice system

In its decision, the Court also said that a state denies an African American defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have purposely been excludedThe Court wrote:

“The very idea of a jury is that it is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person [who is on trial]”

Despite this decision, many juries remained segregated well into the 1950s

In a much earlier case, the Supreme Court ruled that a state law exempting women from jury service solely because of their gender deprives a defendant of his or her 6th and 14th Amendment rights to an impartial juryThe Court said that excluding identifiable segments

of the population cannot be squared with the constitutional concept of trial before a jury composed of a fair cross section of the community

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against an individual with a disabilityThe ADA plays a role in the jury selection process

because jurors & potential jurors must be given reasonable accommodations that enable them to serve, rather than being excluded outright

The Composition of Juries Should every juror have the same skills?

Experiences? Values? What is diversity? Is it a good idea to have a diverse jury? What would be the advantages of having

different perspectives on a panel of jurors, if any?

What might be the disadvantages, if any?

When the jury system first began in the U.S., the only people allowed to serve on juries were white men who owned property

Over time, the property, race, & gender requirements were dropped

In the late 1870s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot prevent any citizen from having the opportunity to serve on a jury because of his or her race

Questions to Consider . . . What do you think the phrase “a jury of your peers”

means? If a 13-year-old was on trial & the jury was composed of

adults, do you think the proceeding would be fair? How close in age should the jury be to the defendant? What are the benefits of having jurors of various ages?

What are the drawbacks? Can young people have a jury of their peers if jurors

must be at least 18 years old to serve on a jury?There are a growing number of youth courts, which attempt to

give young people with minor offenses a true jury of their peers

What if the jury was all male & the offender was female?

Should the jury be from the same part of town or same neighborhood as the offender?

What if the jury was composed of Hispanics & the accused was Asian?

Are We Guaranteed a Right to a Jury of Our Peers?

The Constitution does not literally & specifically guarantee a diverse or “representative” jury of a defendant’s peers; however, it does guarantee the right to an impartial jury

Jury Diversity & Policy Analysis

Many people are looking at ways to make adult juries more diverse, particularly since historical cases like the rape trial known as the Scottsboro case & the murder trial after the assassination of Emmit Till

Some Americans have been skeptical of high-profile & racially-charged cases, like those involving O.J. Simpson, Amadou Diallo, Rodney King, & others, & the effect of the composition of the juries on the level of justice some people perceived in those cases

Right to Speedy and Public Trial  

The 6th Amendment provides defendants with a right to a speedy trial in all criminal cases

Without this requirement, an innocent person might be denied fundamental liberties while awaiting trial in jail for something he or she did not do

The case may be dismissed if the person does not receive a speedy trial

Defendants often waive, or give up, their right to a speedy trial because they may need more time to prepare

The U.S. Supreme Court announced the four factors that courts must use when determining whether or not the right to a speedy trial has been violated:The length of the delayThe reason for the delayWhether or not the defendant asserted his or her

right to a speedy trial, andThe prejudice resulting from the delay

Writ of Habeas Corpus

An order from a higher court to a lower court or to a government official to bring the defendant to courtA writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner

can be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence

Historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action

Public Trial Public trials, along with freedom of the press to

cover trials, limit the power of government to deprive accused people of their rights

This right, along with others in the Constitution, is not absoluteFor example:

○ Some jurisdictions close all juvenile court proceedings○ Judges, (or 1 or both parties) in some high-profile cases

have attempted to exclude the press from preliminary proceedings based on the theory that pretrial publicity makes it impossible to select unbiased jurors

Jury Nullification

Juries determine the facts provided at trial & apply the law based on instructions by the judge

Sometimes juries disregard the law & the judge’s instructions when they believe they must do so in the interest of justice jury nullificationEx: in the 19th century, some juries refused to

convict people who hid runaway slaves, even though it was illegal to do so at that time

Today juries sometimes refuse to convict when they believe a law is unfair or is being enforced unfairlyEx: a refusal to convict a defendant for marijuana

possession when the defendant uses the drug for strictly medicinal purposes

Ex: assisted suicide when the victim is suffering from a disease

Right to Compulsory Process& to Confront Witnesses  

Defendants in a criminal case have a right to compel, or force, witnesses to testify through the use of a subpoena—a court order that requires witnesses to testify

The 6th Amendment also provides defendants with the right to face the witnesses testifying against them & to ask them questions through cross-examination

The issue of the right to confrontation has been the focus of special attention in child & sexual abuse casesAlthough the Supreme Court has rejected state

statutes that afford blanket protections for traumatic child abuse cases, the Court has allowed the use of closed-circuit TV for witness testimony where a case-specific determination is made that the child witness would be traumatized by the presence of the defendant

Still, the Court has expressed “a preference for face-to-face confrontation” between witnesses & defendants where feasibleThis idea derives from the traditional concept that

persons are less likely to fabricate testimony when forced to look squarely at the person they are accusing

Freedom from Self-Incrimination   The 5th Amendment protects a defendant from

having to testify against himself or herself in a criminal caseThe prosecutor cannot use the decision not to

testify as evidence of the defendant's guiltRegardless of innocence or guilt, defense

attorneys often believe it is better that their clients do not take the stand

Critics argue that self-incrimination is no protection for innocent defendants; rather, it keeps criminals from being convicted

Others say that its importance is not to protect “the innocent from conviction, but rather to preserve the integrity of a judicial system in which even the guilty are not to be convicted unless the prosecution shoulders the entire load”

A witness who is given immunity cannot be prosecuted based on any information provided in testimonySometimes the government will grant immunity

when the information a person has is more important than prosecuting that person

Right to an Attorney  

The 6th Amendment provides each defendant with the right to have a lawyer assist with his or her defense

In cases for which imprisonment is a possible punishment, the government provides defense counsel for indigent (poor) defendants

The right to an attorney has been held to mean that people have the right to “effective” assistance of counsel

If this is not provided in a criminal case, defendants may be able to appeal & ask for a new trialThis does not mean that a person must have an

“excellent” or even a “good” lawyer In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court

ruled that in order to prevail on an appeal, a defendant must show reasonable probability that the result would have been different, but for the attorney’s unprofessional conduct

To prove “ineffective assistance of counsel,” one must show a serious error by the attorney that affected the outcome of the case

In the face of some budget shortfalls, many states have begun imposing a fee (a co-pay) for using a public defender, ranging from $10 to $250Critics claim these fees violate the 6th Amendment &

the Gideon ruling [Gideon vs. Wainwright]The fees may cause some people to give up their right

to counsel aid, &, therefore, they may not get a fair trial

Criminal Appeals   If the jury returns a verdict of “not guilty,”

the case is usually over If the jury finds the defendant “guilty,” the defense

may ask the judge to overturn the jury's verdict The defense may also appeal to a higher court,

known as an appellate court, claiming that there were legal errors made by the judge during the trial

The defendant can challenge the conviction or the sentencing decision

New information is not presented at an appealThe defendant’s brief sets out the alleged errors of

law at the trial that led to the convictionThe state’s reply brief provides a response to those

arguments

Serious Errors of Law

Among the possible errors are:Ineffective assistance of counselImproperly admitting evidenceGiving the jury the wrong instructionsImproper use of a sentencing guideline

Trial courts determine questions of fact (guilty or not guilty in a criminal case)

Appellate courts determine questions of law

in order to win an appeal, the defendant (now called the petitioner or appellant) must convince the appeals court that there were serious errors of law made at the trial

Can people appeal a verdict because they think the jury made a mistake?No, usually an appeal is possible only when someone

claims the trial court made an error of law—not an error of fact

Assume a judge made an error during the trial that involved law—will the case automatically be granted an appeal?No, the trial court’s decision will not be reversed if the

judge’s error is considered so minor that it would not affect the outcome of the case

Are appeals heard by a jury of citizens?No, typically, appeals are heard by a panel of three

or more judges

One of the more compelling issues surrounding the appeals process is how people who are indigent are served

There are significant differences among the states regarding whether a poor person can get assistance with the costs associated with appeals, such as lawyer fees, filing fees, transcript costs, etc.

Quote from former Attorney General Janet Reno– presented at the First National Symposium on Indigent Defense:

I believe that all of us, regardless of our position in the criminal justice system, have the responsibility to work to improve the quality of criminal defense for the poor. Our system of justice will only work, and will only inspire complete confidence and trust of the people, if we have strong prosecutors, an impartial judiciary, and a strong system of indigent criminal defense. When the conviction of a defendant is challenged on the basis of inadequate representation, the very legitimacy of the conviction itself is called into question. Our criminal justice system is interdependent: if one leg of the system is weaker than the others, the whole system will ultimately falter.”