What Happens During a Trial

Home

				USFederalCourts.Net					Constitutional Law
									BankruptcyCode.US
				Federal Court Basics					UnitedStatesLaw.Us
				Part 013					iLaw Dictionary

US Codes

State Codes

California State Rules of Court

California Torts

California Contracts

Immigration

Federal Court Basics
Part 013

What Happens During a Trial?

Pretrial activity in civil cases. In most cases, the lawyers and judge agree before trial, often at pretrial conferences, what issues are in dispute and must be decided by the jury and what issues are not in dispute. Both sides reveal whom they intend to call as witnesses and, generally, what evidence they will introduce at trial. However, just because they agree on these matters before the trial does not mean that they agree on how the case should be decided. Rather, the judge holds a conference to avoid wasting time during the trial on issues that can be decided before.

During the pretrial discovery process, the lawyers try to learn as much as possible about their opponent's case by asking to inspect documents and talking to people who know something about what happened. If the lawyers have done a thorough job of preparing the case, they should not be surprised by any of the answers the opposing attorneys witnesses give to their questions during trial. One of the basic rules trial lawyers follow is "Don't ask a question if you don't know what the answer will be." The lawyers and witnesses for each side also prepare for the trial by rehearsing their questions and answers.

Frequently, all of this pretrial activity in a civil case results in a decision by both parties to settle the case without going through a trial. Settling does not mean that the parties have reconciled their dispute; they have merely agreed to a compromise out of court. Often it means that the plaintiff has agreed to accept an amount for damages that is less than the amount he or she originally claimed.

Pretrial activity in criminal cases. A good defense lawyer will also, conduct a thorough investigation before trial in a criminal case, inter viewing witnesses, visiting the scene of the crime, and examining any physical evidence. An important part of this investigation is determining whether the evidence the government plans to use to prove its case, was obtained legally. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution for bids unreasonable searches and seizures. To enforce this protection, the, Supreme Court has decided that for most purposes illegally seized evidence cannot be used at trial. For example, if the police seize evidence from a defendant's home without a search warrant, the lawyer for the, defendant can ask the court to exclude the evidence from use at trial The court then holds a hearing to determine whether the search was unreasonable under the circumstances. If the court rules that key evidence was illegally seized and therefore cannot be used, the government may drop the charges. However, if the government already has a strong case and the court rules that the evidence was obtained legally, the defendant may decide to plead guilty rather than go to trial.

Jury selection. If the parties have chosen a jury trial, it begins with rh( selection of jurors. Citizens are selected for jury service through a process that is set out in laws passed by Congress and in rules adopted b) the federal courts. First, citizens are called to court to be available to serve on juries. These citizens are selected at random from lists of all registered voters in the district or from lists of licensed drivers, or from combinations of such lists. The judge and the lawyers in each case then choose the persons who will actually serve on the jury.

To choose the jurors, the judge and sometimes the lawyers ask prospective jurors questions to determine if they will be able to decide the case fairly. This process is called voir dire. The lawyers may ask the judge to excuse any jurors they think may not be able to be impartial, such as those who know either party in the case or who have had an experience that might make them favor one side over the other. The lawyers may reject a certain number of jurors without giving any justification.

Opening statements. Once the jury has been selected, the lawyers for both sides give their opening statements. The purpose of the opening statements is to allow each side to present its version of the evidence to be offered.

Direct and cross‑examination. Introduction of evidence begins after the opening statements. First, the government's attorney, or the plaintiffs lawyer, questions his or her witnesses. When lawyers question the witnesses whom they have called to testify, it is called direct examination. After the direct examination of a government or plaintiff's witness, the defendant's lawyer may question the witness; this is called cross‑examination. If, after the cross‑examination, the plaintiffs lawyer wants to ask additional questions, he or she may do so on a redirect examination, after which the defendant's lawyer has an opportunity for a re‑crossexamination. After all of the plaintiffs witnesses have been examined, the defense calls its witnesses, and the same procedures are repeated. The lawyers often introduce documents, such as bank records, or objects, such as firearms, as additional evidence, These items are cal exhibits.

Inadmissible evidence. The courts have established rules that must observed in court proceedings to determine facts. For example, the, supreme Court has ruled that a defendant's out‑of‑court confession t crime may not be used in a trial as evidence of the defendant's guilt the confession resulted from coercion. The courts adopted this rule cause forced confessions obviously are not trustworthy.

The federal courts have also adopted a rule to prevent repeated injures to others following a plaintiff's injury. To encourage the defend to repair the faulty condition that may have caused the injury, the rule forbids the introduction of any evidence of such repair, which could seen as an admission of guilt. Thus, a lawyer for a plaintiff who slip on a wet sidewalk cannot introduce evidence that the defendant put a "slippery when wet" sign after the plaintiff's accident. Without rule, the act of putting up the sign could be interpreted as an admission that the sign should have been there at the time of the plaintiff's accident and that the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the hazardous condition. Such an admission would damage the defendant's case.

Another rule concerning the introduction of evidence prohibits the use of secondhand testimony, called hearsay. Under this rule, witnesses may not testify to something that they heard about from someone else. If John Smith, for example, testified, "Bill Jones told me he saw Frank Williams rob the Green Valley Bank," the testimony would be inadmissible as evidence. The courts have decided that hearsay is usually not very reliable and, therefore, cannot be used as evidence in a trial.

Sometimes a lawyer will break one of these rules, either inadvertently or on purpose, and will try to present evidence to the jury that it should not be permitted to hear. If an opposing lawyer believes that testimony asked for or already given is improper, the lawyer may object to it and may ask the judge to instruct the witness not to answer the question or to tell the jury to disregard an answer that has already been given. The judge can either sustain the objection and do as the objecting lawyer requests, or overrule it and permit the testimony. When an objection is made, the judge alone decides whether the testimony is admissible.

Occasionally, the judge and the lawyers for both sides confer at the bench‑sometimes called at sidebar‑out of the jury's earshot but with the court reporter present to record what they say. At other times, they might confer in the judge's chambers. Often, they are discussing whether a certain piece of evidence is admissible. The court doesn't want the jurors to hear such a discussion because they might hear something that can't be admitted into evidence and that might prejudice them in favor of one side or the other.

Closing arguments and instructions. After the evidence has been presented, the lawyers make their closing arguments to the jury, concluding the presentation of their cases. Like the opening statements, the closing arguments don't present evidence but summarize the most important features of each side's case. Following the closing arguments, the judge gives instructions to the jury, explaining the relevant law, how the law applies to the case being tried, and what questions the jury must decide. The jury then retires to the jury room to discuss the evidence( and to reach a verdict. In criminal cases, the jury's verdict must be unanimous. In civil cases, the verdict must also be unanimous, unless the parties have agreed before the trial that they will accept a verdict that is not unanimous.

By serving on a jury, citizens have a unique opportunity to participate directly in the operation of our government. They also make a vita contribution to the smooth functioning of our judicial system. To en courage citizens to participate, the courts try to make jury service a comfortable and rewarding as possible.

Post‑trial matters and sentencing. In federal criminal cases, if the jury (or judge, if there is no jury) decides that the defendant is guilty, the judge sets a date for imposing the sentence. In federal courts, the jury doesn't decide the punishment; the judge does. But the judge's determination is controlled by sentencing statutes passed by Congress and by set of mandatory rules, called sentencing guidelines. The guidelines take into account the nature of the particular offense and the offender's criminal history. A presentence report, prepared by one of the court's probation officers, assists the judge in determining the proper sentence under the applicable rules.

In civil cases, if the jury (or judge) decides in favor of the plaintiff, the jury (or judge) usually orders the defendant to pay the plaintiff money (damages) or to take some specific action that will restore the plaintiffs rights. If the defendant wins the case, however, there is nothing more the trial court needs to do.

Federal Court Basics-Table of Contents
Part 003-Map: Geographical boundaries of U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. District Courts-pdf

Federal Court Basics-Table of Contents
Part 003-Map: Geographical boundaries of U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. District Courts-pdf