Essentials of Criminal Justice - 6e - c 10, Angielskie [EN](4)(2)
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
C
HAPTER
10
The Criminal Trial
Chapter Outline
Legal Rights during Trial
The Right to Be Competent at Trial
The Right to Confront Witnesses
The Right to a Jury Trial
The Right to a 12-Person Jury
The Right to a Unanimous Jury Verdict
The Right to Counsel at Trial
The Right to Self-Representation
The Right to a Speedy Trial
The Right to a Public Trial
The Right to Be Convicted by Proof
beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The Trial Process
Jury Selection
Opening Statements
Prosecution’s Case
The Criminal Defense
Closing Arguments
Instructions to the Jury
The Verdict
The Sentence
The Appeal
302
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 302
11/15/07 2:37:49 PM
303
POLICE IN SOCIETY: HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION
Learning Objectives
1. Describe the goals and purpose of the
trial process
2. Know what is meant by the term
“competent to stand trial”
3. Discuss what the “confrontation clause”
means
4. Be familiar with the structure of the jury
5. Know what the Supreme Court has ruled
on the right to counsel at trial
6. Know what is meant by the term “speedy
trial”
7. Be able to discuss what the concept of
open and public trial means
8. Know the standard of proof in a criminal
trial
9. Articulate the different stages in the trial
process
10. Know what happens if the jury finds the
defendant guilty
Key Themes
Though criminal trials are relatively rare
events, they have significant symbolic
importance.
The Supreme Court has attempted to
shape the trial process in an effort to
protect the rights of criminal defendants.
The concept of an open and public trial is
so important that the press and the public
are not barred from even the most sensi-
tive cases, even those involving sex
and/or abuse.
Although the right to confront witnesses
is the bedrock of the criminal trial, mod-
ern technology such as closed-circuit TV
has created new methods of providing
testimony.
The Supreme Court has attempted to
make trials race neutral by eliminating
bias in the jury selection process.
COBL
Profile
D
R. DEBRA HEATH-THORNTON holds an
associate’s degree in Criminal Justice
from Genesee Community College, a
bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from
Rochester Institute of Technology, a master’s
degree in Criminal Justice from Buffalo State
College, a master’s degree in Education from
Buffalo State College, and a doctor of edu-
cation degree with a focus in Educational
Leadership! She has held numerous positions
in criminal justice, including crime victim
advocate, caseworker with a pretrial diversion
program, and criminal justice planner. She
303
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 303
11/14/07 12:43:40 AM
304
PART 3
COURTS AND ADJUDICATION
witnessed firsthand both the pain that crime victims
suffered and the remorse that offenders who caused the
pain were forced to endure. She also became engaged
with the communities that loved these broken people. In
her work as a county criminal justice director, she was
introduced to restorative justice, a perspective of crime
and criminal justice that takes all of these parties into
account—victims, offenders, and communities. Her role
placed her in a position where she was constantly faced
with the plight of offenders and yet ever mindful of
victims and communities as well.
What does she see as the greatest challenges facing
the justice system? Number one is getting the public to
regard crime as
everybody’s
problem. While the physical
harm to victims is often easy to comprehend, crime also
imposes financial and emotional losses on the commun-
ity. It causes insurance rates to increase and decreases
community members’ ability to feel secure in their own
neighborhoods. These problems can only be dealt with
through community involvement, which requires enlist-
ing support for the victims of crime, promoting effective
reintegration programs for criminal offenders, and devel-
oping education and public information programs to help
neighbors understand the impact of crime.
Debra Heath-Thornton is one of the many different kinds of professionals
whose work and activities have an impact on the trial stage of justice. The
criminal trial is an open and public hearing designed to examine the facts of
the case brought by the state against the accused. Though relatively rare
events (most cases are settled by a plea bargain during the pretrial stage), the
trial is an important and enduring fixture in the criminal justice system. By its
very nature, it is a symbol of the moral authority of the state. The criminal
trial is the symbol of the administration of objective and impartial justice.
Regardless of the issues involved, the defendant’s presence in a courtroom is
designed to guarantee that she will have a hearing conducted under rules of
procedure in an atmosphere of fair play and objectivity and that the outcome
of the hearing will be clear and definitive. If the defendant believes that her
constitutional rights and privileges have been violated, she may appeal the
case to a higher court, where the procedures of the original trial will be exam-
ined. If after examining the trial transcript, the appellate court rules that the
original trial employed improper and unconstitutional procedures, it may
order a new hearing be held or even that the charges against the defendant be
dismissed.
Most formal trials are heard by a jury, though some defendants waive their
constitutional right to a jury trial and request a
bench trial
, in which the
judge alone renders a
verdict
. In this situation, which occurs daily in the
lower criminal courts, the judge may initiate a number of formal or informal
dispositions, including dismissing the case, finding the defendant not guilty,
finding the defendant guilty and imposing a sentence, or even continuing the
case indefinitely. The decision the judge makes often depends on the serious-
ness of the offense, the background and previous record of the defendant, and
bench trial
The trial of a crimi-
nal matter by a judge only. The
accused waives any constitu-
tional right to trial by jury.
verdict
A finding of a jury or a
judge on questions of fact at a
trial.
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 304
11/14/07 12:43:41 AM
305
CHAPTER 10
THE CRIMINAL TRIAL
the judgment of the court about whether the case can be properly dealt with
in the criminal process. The judge may simply continue the case without a
finding, in which case the verdict is withheld without a finding of guilt to
induce the accused to improve her behavior in the community; if the defen-
dant’s behavior does improve, the case is ordinarily closed within a specific
amount of time.
This chapter reviews some of the institutions and processes involved in
adjudication
and trial. We begin with a discussion of the legal rights that
structure the trial process.
LEGAL RIGHTS DURING TRIAL
Underlying every trial are constitutional principles, complex legal procedures,
rules of court, and interpretations of statutes, all designed to ensure that the
accused will receive a fair trial. Every person charged with a crime has a fun-
damental right to a fair trial that takes place before an impartial judge and
jury, in an environment of judicial restraint, orderliness, and fair decision
making. Although there is no strict definition of what constitutes a “fair trial,”
for obvious reasons it cannot take place in a hostile courtroom, be conducted
by a prejudiced judge, or decided by a biased jury. Any behavior that produces
prejudice toward the accused can preclude a fair trial. A defendant cannot be
required to go to trial in prison clothing or walk into the courtroom while
shackled.
1
In the following sections, some of the principles that guide fair trials are
discussed in some detail.
The Right to Be Competent at Trial
In order for a trial to be considered fair, a criminal defendant must be men-
tally competent to understand the nature and extent of the legal proceedings.
If a defendant is mentally incompetent, the trial must be postponed until
treatment renders the defendant capable of participating in his or her own
defense. Can state authorities force a mentally unfit defendant to be psycho-
logically treated so that the defendant can be tried? Yes, if the treatment is
medically appropriate and essential for the defendant’s own safety or the
safety of others.
2
In a 2003 case,
Sell v. United States
, the Supreme Court set
out four rules that guide the use of forced medication:
3
A court must find that
important
governmental interests are at stake. For
example, medication may be approved if a dangerous defendant would
otherwise be released.
The court must conclude that forced medication will
significantly further
state interests. It must find that medication is substantially likely to render
the defendant competent to stand trial and substantially unlikely to have
side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant’s ability to
assist counsel in conducting a defense.
The court must conclude that involuntary medication is
necessary
to fur-
ther state interests and find that alternative, less intrusive treatments are
unlikely to achieve substantially the same results.
The court must conclude that administering the drugs is
medically
appropriate
.
adjudication
The determination
of guilt or innocence; a judgment
concerning criminal charges. The
majority of offenders charged
plead guilty; of the remainder,
some cases are adjudicated by a
judge and a jury, some are adju-
dicated by a judge without a jury,
and others are dismissed.
If these four conditions are met, then a court can order a mentally incom-
petent criminal defendant to be treated so he or she can stand trial.
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 305
11/14/07 12:43:41 AM
306
PART 3
COURTS AND ADJUDICATION
In order to stand trial, defendants must be mentally
competent enough to understand the procedures and
participate in their own defense. Wanda Barzee enters
Judge Judith Atherton’s courtroom for her forced medication
hearing February 16, 2006, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Barzee
was charged with the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in June
2002, and the hearing was being held to determine whether
she could be forced to be medicated in an effort to make
her competent to stand trial. Though the court ruled that
Barzee must take drugs, she and her husband Brian David
Mitchell have yet to be tried in the case.
The Right to Confront Witnesses
The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses
who testify against them at trial. The
confrontation clause
is essential to a fair
criminal trial because it restricts and controls the admissibility of secondhand
evidence.
4
Under normal circumstances, evidence can only be presented by wit-
nesses who are present in court and able to testify under oath. During their
testimony, witnesses must attest to their personal knowledge of the crime and
not merely repeat what others have told them, known as
hearsay evidence
.
Although a witness is permitted to repeat a rumor or testify that someone told
her a story, this testimony would not be evidence of the actual facts of the story,
but only that this person heard those words spoken by others.
Under the confrontation clause, the accused has the right to confront the
witnesses and challenge their assertions and perceptions: Did they really see
what they believe? Are they biased? Can they be trusted? What about the verac-
ity of their testimony? The confrontation clause also applies to documents
confrontation clause
The
constitutional right of a criminal
defendant to see and cross-
examine all the witnesses
against him or her.
hearsay evidence
Testimony
that is not firsthand but related
information told by a second
party.
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 306
11/14/07 12:43:41 AM
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl upanicza.keep.pl
C
HAPTER
10
The Criminal Trial
Chapter Outline
Legal Rights during Trial
The Right to Be Competent at Trial
The Right to Confront Witnesses
The Right to a Jury Trial
The Right to a 12-Person Jury
The Right to a Unanimous Jury Verdict
The Right to Counsel at Trial
The Right to Self-Representation
The Right to a Speedy Trial
The Right to a Public Trial
The Right to Be Convicted by Proof
beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The Trial Process
Jury Selection
Opening Statements
Prosecution’s Case
The Criminal Defense
Closing Arguments
Instructions to the Jury
The Verdict
The Sentence
The Appeal
302
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 302
11/15/07 2:37:49 PM
303
POLICE IN SOCIETY: HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION
Learning Objectives
1. Describe the goals and purpose of the
trial process
2. Know what is meant by the term
“competent to stand trial”
3. Discuss what the “confrontation clause”
means
4. Be familiar with the structure of the jury
5. Know what the Supreme Court has ruled
on the right to counsel at trial
6. Know what is meant by the term “speedy
trial”
7. Be able to discuss what the concept of
open and public trial means
8. Know the standard of proof in a criminal
trial
9. Articulate the different stages in the trial
process
10. Know what happens if the jury finds the
defendant guilty
Key Themes
Though criminal trials are relatively rare
events, they have significant symbolic
importance.
The Supreme Court has attempted to
shape the trial process in an effort to
protect the rights of criminal defendants.
The concept of an open and public trial is
so important that the press and the public
are not barred from even the most sensi-
tive cases, even those involving sex
and/or abuse.
Although the right to confront witnesses
is the bedrock of the criminal trial, mod-
ern technology such as closed-circuit TV
has created new methods of providing
testimony.
The Supreme Court has attempted to
make trials race neutral by eliminating
bias in the jury selection process.
COBL
Profile
D
R. DEBRA HEATH-THORNTON holds an
associate’s degree in Criminal Justice
from Genesee Community College, a
bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from
Rochester Institute of Technology, a master’s
degree in Criminal Justice from Buffalo State
College, a master’s degree in Education from
Buffalo State College, and a doctor of edu-
cation degree with a focus in Educational
Leadership! She has held numerous positions
in criminal justice, including crime victim
advocate, caseworker with a pretrial diversion
program, and criminal justice planner. She
303
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 303
11/14/07 12:43:40 AM
304
PART 3
COURTS AND ADJUDICATION
witnessed firsthand both the pain that crime victims
suffered and the remorse that offenders who caused the
pain were forced to endure. She also became engaged
with the communities that loved these broken people. In
her work as a county criminal justice director, she was
introduced to restorative justice, a perspective of crime
and criminal justice that takes all of these parties into
account—victims, offenders, and communities. Her role
placed her in a position where she was constantly faced
with the plight of offenders and yet ever mindful of
victims and communities as well.
What does she see as the greatest challenges facing
the justice system? Number one is getting the public to
regard crime as
everybody’s
problem. While the physical
harm to victims is often easy to comprehend, crime also
imposes financial and emotional losses on the commun-
ity. It causes insurance rates to increase and decreases
community members’ ability to feel secure in their own
neighborhoods. These problems can only be dealt with
through community involvement, which requires enlist-
ing support for the victims of crime, promoting effective
reintegration programs for criminal offenders, and devel-
oping education and public information programs to help
neighbors understand the impact of crime.
Debra Heath-Thornton is one of the many different kinds of professionals
whose work and activities have an impact on the trial stage of justice. The
criminal trial is an open and public hearing designed to examine the facts of
the case brought by the state against the accused. Though relatively rare
events (most cases are settled by a plea bargain during the pretrial stage), the
trial is an important and enduring fixture in the criminal justice system. By its
very nature, it is a symbol of the moral authority of the state. The criminal
trial is the symbol of the administration of objective and impartial justice.
Regardless of the issues involved, the defendant’s presence in a courtroom is
designed to guarantee that she will have a hearing conducted under rules of
procedure in an atmosphere of fair play and objectivity and that the outcome
of the hearing will be clear and definitive. If the defendant believes that her
constitutional rights and privileges have been violated, she may appeal the
case to a higher court, where the procedures of the original trial will be exam-
ined. If after examining the trial transcript, the appellate court rules that the
original trial employed improper and unconstitutional procedures, it may
order a new hearing be held or even that the charges against the defendant be
dismissed.
Most formal trials are heard by a jury, though some defendants waive their
constitutional right to a jury trial and request a
bench trial
, in which the
judge alone renders a
verdict
. In this situation, which occurs daily in the
lower criminal courts, the judge may initiate a number of formal or informal
dispositions, including dismissing the case, finding the defendant not guilty,
finding the defendant guilty and imposing a sentence, or even continuing the
case indefinitely. The decision the judge makes often depends on the serious-
ness of the offense, the background and previous record of the defendant, and
bench trial
The trial of a crimi-
nal matter by a judge only. The
accused waives any constitu-
tional right to trial by jury.
verdict
A finding of a jury or a
judge on questions of fact at a
trial.
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 304
11/14/07 12:43:41 AM
305
CHAPTER 10
THE CRIMINAL TRIAL
the judgment of the court about whether the case can be properly dealt with
in the criminal process. The judge may simply continue the case without a
finding, in which case the verdict is withheld without a finding of guilt to
induce the accused to improve her behavior in the community; if the defen-
dant’s behavior does improve, the case is ordinarily closed within a specific
amount of time.
This chapter reviews some of the institutions and processes involved in
adjudication
and trial. We begin with a discussion of the legal rights that
structure the trial process.
LEGAL RIGHTS DURING TRIAL
Underlying every trial are constitutional principles, complex legal procedures,
rules of court, and interpretations of statutes, all designed to ensure that the
accused will receive a fair trial. Every person charged with a crime has a fun-
damental right to a fair trial that takes place before an impartial judge and
jury, in an environment of judicial restraint, orderliness, and fair decision
making. Although there is no strict definition of what constitutes a “fair trial,”
for obvious reasons it cannot take place in a hostile courtroom, be conducted
by a prejudiced judge, or decided by a biased jury. Any behavior that produces
prejudice toward the accused can preclude a fair trial. A defendant cannot be
required to go to trial in prison clothing or walk into the courtroom while
shackled.
1
In the following sections, some of the principles that guide fair trials are
discussed in some detail.
The Right to Be Competent at Trial
In order for a trial to be considered fair, a criminal defendant must be men-
tally competent to understand the nature and extent of the legal proceedings.
If a defendant is mentally incompetent, the trial must be postponed until
treatment renders the defendant capable of participating in his or her own
defense. Can state authorities force a mentally unfit defendant to be psycho-
logically treated so that the defendant can be tried? Yes, if the treatment is
medically appropriate and essential for the defendant’s own safety or the
safety of others.
2
In a 2003 case,
Sell v. United States
, the Supreme Court set
out four rules that guide the use of forced medication:
3
A court must find that
important
governmental interests are at stake. For
example, medication may be approved if a dangerous defendant would
otherwise be released.
The court must conclude that forced medication will
significantly further
state interests. It must find that medication is substantially likely to render
the defendant competent to stand trial and substantially unlikely to have
side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant’s ability to
assist counsel in conducting a defense.
The court must conclude that involuntary medication is
necessary
to fur-
ther state interests and find that alternative, less intrusive treatments are
unlikely to achieve substantially the same results.
The court must conclude that administering the drugs is
medically
appropriate
.
adjudication
The determination
of guilt or innocence; a judgment
concerning criminal charges. The
majority of offenders charged
plead guilty; of the remainder,
some cases are adjudicated by a
judge and a jury, some are adju-
dicated by a judge without a jury,
and others are dismissed.
If these four conditions are met, then a court can order a mentally incom-
petent criminal defendant to be treated so he or she can stand trial.
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 305
11/14/07 12:43:41 AM
306
PART 3
COURTS AND ADJUDICATION
In order to stand trial, defendants must be mentally
competent enough to understand the procedures and
participate in their own defense. Wanda Barzee enters
Judge Judith Atherton’s courtroom for her forced medication
hearing February 16, 2006, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Barzee
was charged with the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in June
2002, and the hearing was being held to determine whether
she could be forced to be medicated in an effort to make
her competent to stand trial. Though the court ruled that
Barzee must take drugs, she and her husband Brian David
Mitchell have yet to be tried in the case.
The Right to Confront Witnesses
The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses
who testify against them at trial. The
confrontation clause
is essential to a fair
criminal trial because it restricts and controls the admissibility of secondhand
evidence.
4
Under normal circumstances, evidence can only be presented by wit-
nesses who are present in court and able to testify under oath. During their
testimony, witnesses must attest to their personal knowledge of the crime and
not merely repeat what others have told them, known as
hearsay evidence
.
Although a witness is permitted to repeat a rumor or testify that someone told
her a story, this testimony would not be evidence of the actual facts of the story,
but only that this person heard those words spoken by others.
Under the confrontation clause, the accused has the right to confront the
witnesses and challenge their assertions and perceptions: Did they really see
what they believe? Are they biased? Can they be trusted? What about the verac-
ity of their testimony? The confrontation clause also applies to documents
confrontation clause
The
constitutional right of a criminal
defendant to see and cross-
examine all the witnesses
against him or her.
hearsay evidence
Testimony
that is not firsthand but related
information told by a second
party.
53247_10_Ch10_p302-325 pp2.indd 306
11/14/07 12:43:41 AM
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]