CHAPTER 2 THE COURT PROCESS: PROCEDURE, LAW, AND RULES OF EVIDENCE
| Jurisdiction | United States |
Chapter 2 The Court Process: Procedure, Law, and Rules of Evidence
There are separate court systems for federal prosecutions and state prosecutions. There are federal courts in all states and they are all bound to follow one set of federal rules governing trial procedure and evidence. Each state also has its own court system with its own set of rules. These may be patterned after the federal rules or may be different. Therefore, it is important to determine whether a crime will be prosecuted in a federal or state court. Sometimes, both courts can prosecute the same underlying conduct if that conduct violates a federal law and a state law.
Forensic evidence cannot be admitted in trial before a trial judge or a jury unless the party who wishes to introduce the evidence follows the proper court process, including all applicable rules of evidence. These rules are contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence for cases in federal court and in similar laws adopted by each state for trials held in those states. We will primarily discuss the Federal Rules of Evidence, as they apply in federal courts in all states.
Most crimes have a defined set of legal elements that appear in state or federal statutes. The jury must find each legal element by a preponderance of the evidence (51% or more). It must find guilt, however, by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean 100% certainty. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. We will review a typical jury instruction of the standard of proof for a crime.
The jury is the sole finder of fact, but it must apply the law as given to it by the judge. At the trial's conclusion, the judge will give the jury instructions about how to apply the law to the facts. Usually, each side in a trial will "propose" a set of jury instructions favorable to their view of the law. The judge must then decide which specific instructions to give. Take the crime of murder, for example. The legal elements of murder are legal tests to which the jury must apply the facts.
Rules of evidence are designed to safeguard all parties against the introduction of unreliable or impermissibly prejudicial evidence. Evidence must be relevant to the legal issues in the case. If prejudice would result to the defendant from the introduction of the evidence, the court may exclude that evidence. The rules of evidence contain separate rules for admitting testimony by experts, which we reviewed in Chapter 1. These rules govern forensic testimony and provide that testimony by a qualified expert is admissible only if it will assist the jury to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.
"Judicial Notice" means that a trial court may accept a fact as having been proved without either party putting on evidence. The reliability of the science of DNA has been the subject of judicial notice, meaning that a party does not have to put on proof of what DNA or DNA testing consists of. The jury may still refuse to accept a fact that is judicially noticed or any other evidence.
The Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been held to apply to forensic testimony. If any report of forensic investigation performed by someone not in court is attempted to be introduced, the defendant will likely object that the person who performed the test be available to testify. The courts are still testing the limits of this rule, in particular as it may relate to various personnel involved in DNA testing. If the report is "testimonial" in nature, the court is likely to rule the writer of the report must testify.
Court decisions in federal courts are binding precedent on the courts below them. For example, a decision by a federal circuit court is binding on all the federal courts in that circuit. This is called "precedent," meaning the courts must all follow the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all federal courts (if on a matter of federal law) and on all states as well (if the decision involves a question under the U.S. Constitution). We will read cases from both state and federal courts, so it is important to ask what the precedential value of the case may be.
Both state and federal courts maintain trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and a supreme court. Typically, a defendant may appeal as of right (assuming he meets time requirements and presents a "question of law" that was raised at trial) to the intermediate appellate court. The supreme court generally takes a final appeal only if it chooses to. Finally, both state and federal prisoners may bring a habeas corpus action before a federal trial court on the issue of whether his imprisonment violates the U.S. Constitution.
Appellate courts do not take evidence or determine facts. They are bound by the trial record as to facts. Their job is to determine if an error of law was made by the trial court that justifies reversing a conviction. They defer to decisions of the trial court, unless there was an abuse of its discretion. They may note an error took place, but affirm a conviction regardless if it was "harmless error," meaning that there is sufficient evidence of guilt without looking at the evidence that is tainted by an error to conclude a reasonable jury would have found the defendant guilty.
Based on this chapter, students will be able to:
1. Explain the difference between state and federal courts.
2. Describe the difference between trial and appellate courts.
3. Understand the concept of double jeopardy.
4. Identify the legal elements of the crime of murder in their state.
5. Understand the concept of relevance and the Federal Rules 401 and 402.
6. Describe Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and the balancing test used to keep prejudicial evidence out of the trial.
7. Evaluate the federal rules relating to evidence of prior crimes or bad acts in terms of possible prejudice to a defendant.
8. Explain the concept of judicial notice and how it applies to forensic evidence.
9. Understand the appellate and habeas corpus procedure and the standards of review in each.
10. Describe how the U.S. Constitution Confrontation Clause affects what forensic analysts must testify in court.
State and Federal Courts Have Different Rules
This country has a dual system of courts: each state has its own court system and the federal government also has an entirely separate court system. Crimes that violate state law are heard in state trial courts. Crimes that violate federal law are heard in federal courts. In the federal system, the trial court is called a "district court": The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is an example. There are 94 separate judicial districts in the United States. In Connecticut, the trial court is called the Superior Court for the Judicial District (county) in which the trial takes place: The Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven is an example.
Both state and federal trial courts have written rules which govern procedure, what types of evidence are admissible, and the appropriate admission procedure. The defendant has a right to a trial before a jury in both court systems. (The defendant may waive that right, and have his or her case tried by a judge without a jury. A trial before a judge without a jury is called a court trial or a bench trial.) Therefore, the first question in determining whether certain evidence will be admissible is whether the matter is being heard in state or federal court.
The elements of a crime that must be proved will be found in either the state code of criminal law or in a federal statute making a certain act a crime. (We will discuss later acts that can be both a state and federal crime.) Once the elements of the crime are known, the prosecution then must present evidence on each of the elements (unless the parties have agreed beforehand or "stipulated" to a fact or element). The prosecution goes first. It must introduce evidence to prove each of the elements of the alleged crime. The defendant does not need to present a defense, testify, or otherwise refute the prosecution's case. He is not required to offer an alibi or an alternate theory of how the crime occurred. The burden is entirely on the prosecution.
The Role of the Courts in Admitting Evidence
When the prosecution or the defense seeks to admit evidence, the attorney will "offer" the item in evidence. It will then be marked as an exhibit and given a number. Generally, the prosecution and defense have exchanged lists of evidence prior to the trial so there are no surprises when an item is offered. If the other side objects to the evidence on a legal ground, that party must state the objection before the court, which generally will rule immediately on whether the evidence can be admitted. If it is admitted "over a party's objection," that objection remains in the trial record and can form the basis for a later motion to dismiss or an appeal.
The courts rule on the admissibility of forensic evidence at two levels: the trial court and the appellate court. The trial court is where the jury hears evidence, finds facts, and decides the ultimate questions, such as whether defendant is liable for a plaintiff's injuries in a civil trial or whether defendant is guilty of the offense charged in a criminal trial.
Motions are a significant part of the trial process in criminal and civil cases in both court systems. A motion is a request by an attorney for a party in a case that the court take an action or refrain from taking an action. A motion may be as significant as a request that the trial court dismiss an entire case. On the other hand, a motion may be as mundane as a request for a two-day extension of time to complete a court-ordered task. Motions are most frequently submitted to the court in written form with a copy...
To continue reading
Request your trial