The criminal trial is a formal process that is governed by the rules of criminal law, procedure, and evidence. Each jurisdiction in the United States has its own criminal trial procedure. However, criminal trials generally follow a similar process—one that is reflective of the adversarial nature of the court system, in which the defendant is confronted by and faces the state as the opposing authoritative body. Unlike what is portrayed on many television shows such as Law and Order and How to Get Away with Murder—whereby an attorney intentionally puts his or her client on the stand knowing full well that the client may lie, or whereby witnesses are asked leading and prejudicial questions and outbursts of victims or angered loved ones fill the courtroom—the modern-day criminal trial is often a technical affair. It is governed by an adversarial proceeding in which both the prosecution and the defense must follow a set of procedures. The objective is to have each side present its case in its most favorable light. Although there may be individual victims involved in criminal cases, the trial itself is not brought forth by them but by the state (or federal government). All crimes are classified as offenses against the state (society), and as a result, a representative of the state—the prosecutor—is responsible for filing and pursuing the case in criminal court. A defendant can choose the trial to be heard before a jury or a judge.
Waiver
Although most criminal trials are heard and decided by a jury, some defendants waive their constitutional right to a jury trial and opt, instead, for a bench trial. A bench trial is when a judge is responsible to hear the criminal matter, instead of an impartial jury, a right afforded by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are many different reasons as to why a defendant may waive his or her right to a jury trial. For example, a defendant may want to put his or her fate into only one person’s hands, the judge, instead of several, which would occur with a jury. In addition, the defendant may feel as though the judge may be more sympathetic or be able to assist better with cases that are complicated by factual circumstances. Lastly, bench trials tend to be less time consuming and costly. Even though one has a right to waive one’s right to a jury trial, it is not always granted. A judge can veto the waiver at the request of a prosecutor and therefore require a jury trial if he or she feels a fairer trial will result.
History of the Jury Trial
The use of juries in a criminal trial can be traced to the 12th century. In the English common law system, the county sheriff was charged with selecting the members of the jury. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sheriff would typically choose jury members who held views and positions favorable to the reigning monarchy—and reach verdicts accordingly. If the jury members did not reach a favorable decision—or one at all—the sheriff had the authority to withhold food from and even punish the jury members in order to prevent them from siding with the defendant which, ultimately, was against the monarchy. A jury’s decision was deemed incorrect if, when tried by a jury of Knights, an opposite verdict was reached. The use of juries to decide guilt in a criminal trial became commonplace in England by the mid-1200s. Later, this practice was adopted by American colonists. However, juries were originally used as a means to rally against British laws, and their use was later included as a right within the U.S. Constitution. Although the right to a jury trial has been recognized since the signing of the U.S. Constitution in federal courts, it was not extended to the states until 1968 in the case Duncan v. Louisiana.
The Sixth Amendment grants the right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions. However, the Supreme Court has narrowed this right in the case of Baldwin v. New York (1970), stating that the accused only has a right to a jury trial if the imposing sentence would equate to 6 months or more of confinement in prison, regardless of whether the crime was a felony or a misdemeanor. For anything fewer than 6 months, the accused is not entitled to a jury trial unless deemed otherwise, typically by a state statute.
History of a Bench Trial
The bench trial originated during the 17th century in the American colonies. However, it was not until the 19th century that bench trials became a more common practice in several states. Bench trials are more common in the lower criminal courts. In a bench trial, the judge has sole authority in hearing evidence and reaching a verdict. He or she is the trier of the law and the trier of the fact. What this means is that a judge will decide on the issues of the law and also decide whether the defendant should be found guilty, which would otherwise be the responsibility of the jury. Aside from finding the defendant guilty, a judge has several administrative decisions that he or she must make. The more common administrative decisions include dismissal of the case, granting of motions, maintaining courtroom conduct, and the determination of guilt or innocence.
Two prominent cases concerning the right to a bench trial is Patton v. United States (1930) and United States v. Jackson (1968). In Patton v. United States, the defendants argued in a federal criminal trial that an individual cannot waive his or her right to a jury trial because defendants lacked the authority to waive this right. However, the Supreme Court stated that the right to a jury trial can be waived in federal criminal cases at the request of a defendant, as long as the presiding judge and government attorneys agree to the waiver and the consent be express and intelligent. United States v. Jackson enhances the requirement stating that the waiver be voluntary, to limit the possibility of government coercion.
Charging the Defendant
Once a defendant is charged with a crime, depending on the state, the process varies as to whether charges will be heard before a grand jury or a preliminary hearing. The grand jury was created as a means to protect against a possible arbitrary prosecution, where a judge might be a puppet of the government. This was an early development of English common law and later incorporated into the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The grand jury acts as the community’s conscience, determining whether the prosecution has justified the need of a trial, based on evidence and the testimony of witnesses. This is a closed hearing, meaning that the defense attorney, the defendant, and the public are not allowed to attend. The grand jury is tasked with determining whether probable cause exists for the prosecution. If prob able cause exists, an indictment, also known as a true bill, is affirmed and charges are brought forth.
The second state process, a preliminary hearing, which is used in about half of the states, is when a prosecutor provides a written accusation specifying that a particular individual committed a certain offense. This written accusation is called information. When this mechanism is chosen, a preliminary hearing is required. The preliminary hearing has the same purpose of the grand jury hearing. However, the preliminary hearing provides some advantages for the defendant. For example, the preliminary hearing provides the defense notice of what evidence the prosecution has concerning the case. It is during this phase that a judge may dismiss the charges. Other unique aspects of the preliminary hearing include the defendant’s right to challenge the prosecutor’s evidence and to cross-examine the state’s witnesses. It is also during this time that a defendant can chose to waive his or her right to a criminal proceeding. A waiver may be chosen to speed up the criminal justice process by pleading guilty, or it may be used to avoid any negative publicity that may occur if a criminal proceeding were to take place. A waiver prevents the prosecutor from having to reveal the state’s evidence. In the end, either the grand jury or a preliminary hearing establish whether probable cause is sufficient to merit a criminal trial.
The Plea
After this hearing, an arraignment takes place before the court. This is where the case will be heard. During this time, the presiding judge informs the defendant of the charges, which is a constitutional right granted by the Sixth Amendment. Counsel is also appointed if needed. It is during this phase that a defendant is asked to enter a plea. There are four plea options: not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty, or nolo contendere (no contest). A trial date is set if the defendant enters a plea of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. A date for sentencing is arranged when the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere. A plea of nolo contendere states that the defendant does not deny or accept responsibility for the crimes charged but agrees to accept the punishment afford by the court. Essentially, it is a plea of guilty, but it cannot be used as proof in subsequent legal matters, for example, a civil lawsuit or appeal, since there was no admission of guilt.
Trial Process
The criminal trial begins with a venire—this is a group of individuals that are called in for potential jury duty. Next is the voir dire, which is the process used to produce an unbiased and objective jury that reduces the larger group of jurors to a smaller panel of jurors, based on their responses from various questions asked by both the prosecution and the defense. After jury selection, the prosecution begins with an opening statement to the jury. Here, the prosecutor states the criminal charges, outlines the facts concerning the case, and describes how the state will prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Next, the defense begins with its opening statement, indicating how the accused is not guilty. The prosecutor then presents evidence through a direct examination of its witnesses. These witnesses can include eyewitness accounts of the incidents, expert witnesses, police officers, and victim statements. During the direct examination, the prosecution questions each witness to further show guilt of the accused.
After questioning by the prosecution, the defense conducts a cross-examination of the state’s witnesses. The goal of the defense team is to challenge the accuracy and/or credibility of the state’s witnesses. Next, the defense has the option of presenting witnesses to refute the government’s allegations. It is also during this time that the defense attorney decides whether to have the defendant testify. The defendant is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which holds the right to be free from self- incrimination. Therefore, a person cannot be forced to testify against him- or herself. Once the defense is finished, the prosecution may rebut what the defense presented. At the end of the state’s rebuttal, the defense may be granted a surrebuttal—only responding to the prosecution’s rebuttal. During rebuttals, no new evidence can be introduced. After, the closing arguments begin with the defense and end with the prosecution.
The facts are reviewed and presented in a favorable manner for each side (i.e., defense and prosecution). Next, the judge instructs the jury on the law, evidence, and standards of proof needed to convict. Then, the jury deliberates on a verdict. Once a verdict is rendered, this is usually read to the judge and sentencing is imposed.
Trial Rights
While some of the administrative and judicial processes differ based on jurisdiction, the majority of them can be found at similar stages of the criminal trial process, providing similar rights—specifically to the accused. Many of the rights that govern the criminal trial process are guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Speedy Trial
Though vague as proscribed in the U.S. Constitution, the right to a speedy trial has been addressed by legislation such as the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. There are a host of standard procedures, as well as tactics by the defense attorney, that may extend or delay the commencement of a criminal trial. Pretrial motions, plea negotiations, inefficient scheduling, the granting of continuances, and even abuse of time by court personnel have made what constitutes a violation of the speedy trial guarantee. As a result, academics and practitioners alike have put forth suggestions for improving the efficiency of the criminal trial process.
Public Trial
For a criminal trial to meet the constitutional guarantee of being public, it must be open to the public. Only in rare instances is this right limited, allowing anyone who wants to see a criminal trial the ability to do so. However, in some cases certain items of evidence are not open for public view for the protection of the victim. The right to a public trial does not necessitate that members of the public are present during trial, just that there is the ability for them to do so. Similarly, not all persons interested in viewing a criminal trial are guaranteed the ability to do so. A judge may limit viewership of a criminal trial due to capacity limitations as well as—due to ejection—the removal of any disruptive member of the viewing public.
Impartial Judge
Although not stated explicitly in the U.S. Constitution, every defendant in a criminal trial is afforded the right for his or her trial to be presided over by an impartial judge. Not until Tumey v. Ohio (1927) did the U.S. Supreme Court rule on this issue, holding it to be a violation when a judge “has a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion” in a case. Impartiality is paramount to just the application of the law in a criminal trial. Judges are in charge of determining what evidence is allowed into the courtroom, providing the jury with legal definitions and instructions about the law or laws in question, and sentencing when applicable.
Right to an Impartial Jury
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution highlight the importance of the right to an impartial jury in criminal cases by mentioning the right in both the original Constitution (Article III, Section 2) and in the Bill of Rights (the Sixth Amendment). In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to an impartial jury of his or her peers. The duty of the jury is to hear cases without prejudice and to deliver an unbiased verdict.
Right to Counsel at Trial
The defendant has a right to counsel at various points in the justice process. Based on the Supreme Court case Scott v. Illinois (1979), during a state criminal trial, an indigent defendant who is facing the possibility of incarceration must be provided counsel. This possibility includes cases where the defendant is sentenced to probation in which a jail or prison term or any other sentence that contains the threat of a future incarceration is suspended.
Right to Be Competent at Trial
Defendants who are criminally charged must be deemed mentally competent in order to stand trial. Competency to stand trial is rooted in the English common law prohibition against trials in absentia. This absence refers to the right that defendants have to being physically and mentally present at their trial. Jurisdictions vary with their requirements for determining competency as well as the burden of proof in proving such in a criminal case. Some states, for example, require defendants only to understand the nature of their wrongdoing, while others offer the alternative of a defendant having willful control over his or her behavior.
Right to Confront Witnesses
The framers of the Constitution argued that in order to have a fair trial, the defendant should have a right to see and cross-examine all witnesses. The reasoning was based on the idea that individuals would have a harder time lying when the person is in front of them. Thus, only truthful evidence would be presented. It is the Sixth Amendment that affords the defendant the right to confront the state’s witnesses, stating that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Thus, this Amendment grants the defendant the right to participate in his or her trial by being present to make sure hearsay, or secondhand, evidence is not entered in as evidence. Only firsthand knowledge is permissible.
Right to Compulsory Process
The accused, as a result of the Six Amendment, has a right to have a compulsory process— meaning that he or she has a right to obtain witnesses in his or her favor. This can be done via a subpoena, which is an order that requires a witness on a specified date and place to appear in court. This fundamental right was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Washington v. Texas (1967).
Right to Be Convicted Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The standard of proof needed for a defendant to be convicted in a criminal trial at the adjudicatory stage is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest standard of proof that prosecution must overcome. The reasonable doubt standard is essential since the U.S. system is based on the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty. This standard helps prevent the innocent from being convicted.
The Appeal
Once the defendant is found guilty, the defense may begin to petition the courts for an appeal. An appeal is when the defense petitions the appellate court to review the procedures used during trial, claiming basis or error affected the conviction in the trial court. The appellate court reviews a copy of the court transcripts and determines whether the criminal conviction should be overturned (i.e., reversed), whether a new trial should be ordered (i.e., remanded), or whether the case’s outcome should remain (i.e., affirmed).
References:
- American Bar Association. (2006). ABA standards for criminal justice: Speedy trial and timely resolution of criminal cases (3rd ed.). Washington DC: American Bar.
- Siegel, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2015). Essentials of criminal justice (9th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage.
- Towne, S. C. (1982). The historical origins of bench trial for serious crime. The American Journal of Legal History, 26(2), 123–159.
Court Cases
- Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930)
- Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979)
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)
- United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)