PART 3 - CHAPTER 10 The Nature of Criminal Trials

• Jurisdiction: United States

Chapter 10 The Nature of Criminal Trials

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

■ Identify and discuss the constitutional rights that apply to the conduct of criminal trials.
■ Discuss the role of juries and the way they are selected in criminal trials.
■ Explain how the rules of evidence affect what can be presented in court.
■ Identify the different types of evidence and discuss the various ways of laying a foundation for the admission of these different types of evidence.

INTRODUCTION

In Part 2, we followed the development of criminal cases from the detection of a crime through the bringing of formal charges, pre-trial discovery, plea bargaining, and diversion. In Part 3, we cover trials, sentencing, appeals, and additional proceedings.

Our coverage of trials begins in this chapter, with a look at their basic functions and roles of key participants. We then move on to examine the constitutional principles governing criminal trials and the rules concerning the introduction of evidence at trials. Chapter 11 covers how attorneys and paralegals prepare for trials. Chapter 12 discusses what actually goes on during a criminal trial and what paralegals do to assist the attorneys during these trials. Chapter 13 will cover issues related to sentencing, while Chapter 14, deals with appeals. Finally, Chapter 15 presents collateral remedies, pardons, and commutations, as well as the expungement and sealing of criminal records.

A. FUNCTIONS OF THE COURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES

In Chapter 2, we discussed the importance of the concept of the "rule of law" and noted how it involved three basic principles:

■ The government must follow its own rules.
■ The government must apply the law impartially.
■ The government must provide due process for those accused of breaking the rules.

In our legal system, it is the responsibility of the courts to ensure that government officials impartially follow the law and that those accused of breaking the law receive due process of law. Judges are responsible for ensuring due process, and trials are the mechanism used to determine if the government can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone has done something that the government has designated a crime.¹ The rules used to conduct the trial must comport with the constitutional protections considered to be essential to the "due process of law," and if the defendant is found guilty, either the judge or sometimes a jury plays an important role in determining what the punishment will be.

B. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF TRIALS

Figure 2.2 (page 25) listed 16 constitutional rights that apply to applications of criminal law. Some, such as the right to indictment by a grand jury and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, were discussed in Part 2, where they were related to actions taken prior to the start of a criminal trial. In this section, we will focus on the constitutional rights that are directly related to what goes on at the trial itself.

1. RIGHT TO COUNSEL

In order to help defendants take advantage of their constitutional rights, the Sixth Amendment includes a provision creating a right to counsel. It declares: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."²

Back in Chapter 4, we discussed how the right to counsel has been interpreted to apply to the criminal investigation stage, and in Chapter 6, we discussed the appointment of counsel for people who couldn't afford to hire an attorney on their own. Chapters 6 through 9 covered various activities that defense attorneys undertake to prepare a defense and attempt to negotiate favorable plea agreements. In the remaining chapters of this section, we will cover their roles in the trial process, sentencing, and appeals.

2. RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL

The Sixth Amendment declares: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."³ This provision, along with several others in the Bill of Rights, was designed to prevent the type of star-chamber proceedings that had taken place in England from the 15th into the 17th centuries, whereby someone was seized in the middle of the night and secretly tried, convicted, and punished without relatives or the general public ever knowing what happened to the person. The provision for public trials was clearly designed to be a check against the abuse of governmental power.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed judges to close some types of pre-trial hearings to protect privacy rights and to avoid prejudicial publicity, it ruled in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia that criminal trials had to be open to the public, and the public included representatives of the press.⁴

Note, however, that trials related to juvenile offenses are typically not open to the public. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause required juveniles be given the right to notice of charges, the right to counsel, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, it does not require that trials of juveniles be open to the public.

3. RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL

There are three references to jury trials in the U.S. Constitution. The first appears in Article III, which states in part: "The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." The other two references are part of the Bill of Rights: the Sixth Amendment establishes a right to a trial "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," and the Seventh Amendment establishes a right to a jury trial in many types of civil cases.

a. Functions of Juries

The basic function of the jury is to resolve the factual, as opposed to the legal, questions raised in the case. Factual questions relate to the determination of who did what and when, where, and how they did it. Was the defendant the person who witnesses claim they saw robbing the gas station? Did the blow struck by the defendant cause the victim's death? The resolution of factual issues usually comes down to which witnesses the jurors choose to believe. On the other hand, legal questions relate to the procedures used in the trial, the admissibility of different kinds of evidence, and the interpretation of the statutes being applied. These legal issues are handled by the judge, rather than the jury, because they require special legal training and experience. When a case is tried by a judge alone (known as a "bench trial"), the judge decides both questions of law and questions of fact.

b. Justifications for the Use of Juries

Juries are an important part of our English common law heritage. They developed as a means of limiting the powers of the English monarchy and safeguarding citizens against corrupt or biased judges and prosecutors. In addition to serving as a check on potential abuses of power and political corruption, an argument in favor of the jury system is that a representative group of common, ordinary people from the local community is better situated to judge the credibility of the witnesses than a single judge would be. This is especially true in smaller communities, where jurors may be more apt to have had personal dealings with the defendant and/or the witnesses and may have knowledge of their reputations for truth and veracity.

c. A Jury of One's Peers

All of you have probably heard the phrase "jury of one's peers," but you will not find it in the Constitution. There is no legal requirement that a jury be made up of people like the defendant. The Sixth Amendment, however, does require "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Thus, it is the demographics of the community, rather than the characteristics of the defendant, that must be represented in the jury.⁵

Jury selection is a two-step process: The first involves identifying people who are eligible to serve on juries in general, and the second involves selection of individuals to be jurors in a specific case. Usually in the first stage, public officials with titles like jury commissioner collect names and addresses from public records, such as lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. Questionnaires are then sent to a random sampling of people on these lists to collect data relating to their age, occupation, citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and the existence of any conditions that would excuse them from being a juror.

Local practices vary with respect to exempting certain classes of people from jury duty. Historically, people would be excused if they could convince jury commissioners that jury service would be a personal hardship or a hardship for their employer. In many jurisdictions, mothers of small children were routinely excused; however, that practice is becoming far less common today. Attorneys and judges have also been typically excused, but many jurisdictions are now requiring them to serve as well. People with certain types of physical and mental disabilities may also be excused.

Based on the information gathered from questionnaires and other sources, the public officials develop a list of people they will call for jury duty on specific dates. Typically, individuals are sent a summons that requires them to be available to report for a period of a week. During that period, they are required to call a special phone number or check a special website to learn the specific dates and times at which they will have to report to the courthouse for duty.

d. An Impartial Jury

The Sixth Amendment specifically states that juries should be "impartial." In other words, the members of the jury should not be biased or prejudiced toward either the government or the defendant. Note that this requirement of impartiality may be somewhat at odds with...