© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 1

Chapter 9 The

Courtroom Work Group

and the Criminal

Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 2

Courtroom Work GroupProfessionals• judge• prosecuting attorney• defense attorney• bailiff• court reporter• clerk of the court• expert witnesses

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 3

Courtroom Work Group

• lay witnesses • jurors• defendant(s)• victim(s)

OthersOthers

Courtroom Work Group

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 4

Professionals

• primary duty - to ensure justice takes place

• rules on matters of the law

• decides on admissibility of evidence

JudgeJudge

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 5

• maintains discipline in court• sentences offenders

found guilty• determines guilt when jury is not

used

ProfessionalsJudgeJudge

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 6

The chief judge handles administrative responsibilities if there is no court administrator. • hires staff• ensures adequate training of new

judges and staff• generally manages

court operation

Professionals

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 7

Judicial Selection

Federal Level

• appointed by the President of the U.S.

• confirmed by the U.S. Senate

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 8

Three methods of selection:• popular election • gubernatorial

appointment• Missouri Plan

State Level

Judicial Selection

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 9

Missouri Plan• The Missouri Plan incorporates

elements of both popular election and appointment.

• When a vacancyoccurs, the public votes to retain the judge or to have a new appointment made.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 10

• Non-partisan committee creates a list of possible candidates.

• Final list sent to the governor’s office.• The governor appoints from list

submitted.• After a specified time period, the

appointed judge stands for the election unopposed.

Missouri Plan

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 11

Judges: QualificationsAt general and appellate levels:At general and appellate levels:

• be a member of the state bar • be a licensed attorney• hold a law degree (in most

states)• attend training

sessions

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 12

Prosecuting Attorney

Also called:Also called:

• solicitor• district attorney• state’s attorney• prosecutor

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 13

Prosecutor

Federal prosecutors are called U.S. attorneys.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 14

Prosecutor

•At the state level, most prosecutors are elected for a four-year term. •Five states appoint their prosecutors.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 15

ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities

Prosecutor

•presents information/ evidence to the grand

jury•decides which charges are

to be filed against the defendant

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 16

Prosecutor

Responsibilities Responsibilities

• introduces evidence against defendant at trial•directs testimony of witnesses for the state

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 17

• argues in favor of conviction

• files appeals on behalf of state to appellate court

Prosecutor ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 18

• argues briefs before appellate court

• makes presentations to parole boards

Prosecutor ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 19

Brady v. Maryland (1963)

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence that directly or indirectly relates to claims of either guilt or innocence.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 20

U.S. v. Bagley (1985)

The Court ruled that prosecution must disclose any evidence that the defense requests.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 21

U.S. v. Bagley (1985)

To withhold evidence, even when it does not directly relate to issues of guilt or innocence, may mislead the defense into thinking that such evidence does not exist.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 22

Prosecutor Liability

U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “state prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability…for their conduct in initiating and presenting the State’s case.”

Imbler v. Pachtman (1976)Imbler v. Pachtman (1976)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 23

Burns v. Reed (1991)Court held that a “state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from liability for damages…for participating in a probable cause hearing, but not for giving legal advice to the police.”

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 24

In this case, the prosecutor told police it would be alright to hypnotize a defendant, who then confessed while hypnotized.

Burns v. Reed (1991)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 25

The defendant charged that evidence obtained while she was hypnotized was inadmissible, and that prosecutor knew this.

Burns v. Reed (1991)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 26

Abuse of DiscretionBy virtue of their position, prosecutors may be ethically challenged as follows...

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 27

Abuse of Discretion• not prosecuting friends• accepting guilty pleas for

drastically reduced charges for personalconsiderations• overzealous prosecution to

gain visibility for possible re-election

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 28

• scheduling activities to make life difficult for defendants, in an attempt to put pressure on them to plead guilty• discriminating against minorities

Abuse of Discretion

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 29

Defense Counsel• represents the accused• participates in plea

negotiations• prepares an

adequate defense• calls witnesses

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 30

• disputes case presented by prosecutor

• presents arguments at time of sentencing

• files appeals

Defense Counsel

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 31

Types of Defense CounselTypes of Defense Counsel

• private attorneys• court appointed

counsel• public defenders

Defense Counsel

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 32

Criminal Defense of the Poor

Important Court CasesImportant Court Cases

• Powell v. Alabama (1932)

• Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)

• In re Gault (1967)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 33

Powell v. Alabama (1932)Powell v. Alabama (1932)

The Court required that states provide defense counsel for those defendants who are unable to employ their own counsel and are charged with a capital offense.

Criminal Defense of the Poor

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 34

U.S. Supreme Court established the right of indigent offenders to have legal counsel appointed for them in all federal cases.

Criminal Defense of the Poor

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 35

This case extended the right to appointed counsel for indigents in all felony cases.

Criminal Defense of the Poor

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 36

The U.S. Supreme Court extended the right to indigent offenders to have legal representation in any case where a person could lose their liberty (this included misdemeanor cases).

Criminal Defense of the Poor

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 37

The U.S. Supreme Court extended the right to legal counsel for juveniles charged with a delinquent act.

Criminal Defense of the Poor

In re Gault (1967)In re Gault (1967)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 38

Criminal Defense of the Poor

Three Types of ProgramsThree Types of Programs

• court assigned counsel

• public defenders

• contract attorneys

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 39

Court Assigned CounselFee paid based on state rate (most widely used).Fee paid based on state rate (most widely used).

Fee is usually low, raising questions about the level of commitment of defense attorneys.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 40

Court Assigned Counsel

Roster of local attorneys who are willing to take cases under established fees.

Fee paid based on state rate

(most widely used).

Fee paid based on state rate

(most widely used).

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 41

Public Defender Program

uses full-time salaried attorneys

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 42

• 28% of counties nationwide use this system exclusively.

• 64% of counties nationwide use public defenders as part of their system.

Public Defender Program

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 43

Contract Attorneys

• Local attorneys are maintained on

contract to handle all cases.

• They are the least widely used form for indigent defense.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 44

Indigent Offender Representation

2.3% of all money spent on criminal justice is used to pay defense counsel for indigent offenders.

Faretta v. California (1975)Faretta v. California (1975)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 45

Indigents are not required to accept counsel. They may waive their rights and represent themselves.

Indigent Offender Representation

Faretta v. California (1975)Faretta v. California (1975)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 46

1% of federally charged defendants represent themselves.

3% of defendants charged at the state level represent themselves.

Indigent Offender Representation

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 47

The Ethics of Defense

ABA Ethical Guidelines

• Canons of Professional Ethics

• Model Code of Professional Responsibility

• Model Rules of Professional Conduct

• Standards for Criminal Justice

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 48

Bailiff• charged with ensuring

order in the courtroom• announces entry of judge• calls out names of

witnesses

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 49

maintains control over the defendant if person has not been released on bail

Bailiff

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 50

maintains physical custody of and supervises jury during deliberations and sequestering

Bailiff

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 51

Local Court Administrators

• facilitate the smooth running of courts in particular judicial districts or courts• provide uniform

court management

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 52

• relieve judges of many routine and repetitive tasks

• manage jurors

• track lengthy cases and identify bottlenecks in court processing

Local Court Administrators

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 53

Court Reporter• Another name for court

reporter is “courtstenographer.”

• They create a written record of all court proceedings.

• Transcripts are necessary if an appeal is to be filed.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 54

Clerk of Court• maintains all records of criminal

cases• prepares jury pool and issues jury

summonses• subpoenas witnesses• during trial, marks

physical evidence for identification

• swears in witnesses

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 55

The Expert Witness• A person who has special

knowledge and skills in an established profession or technical area.

• Generally, this person is a paid professional.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 56

OutsidersNon-professional courtroom participantsNon-professional courtroom participants

• jurors

• victim

• defendant

• lay witnesses

• press

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 57

Crosby v. U.S (1993)Crosby v. U.S (1993)

The Court held that a defendant may not be tried in abstentia, even if he/she was present at the beginning of the trial, where absence is due to escape or failure to appear.

Defendant

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 58

The Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 59

The Criminal TrialTrial Initiation: Speedy Trial Act/CasesTrial Initiation: Speedy Trial Act/Cases

• Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)

• Barker v. Wingo (1972)

• Strunk v. United States (1973)

• U.S. v. Taylor (1988)

• Doggett v. U.S. (1992)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 60

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)

Civil Disobedience Trial

Duke University professor involved in protest against

segregated facilities.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 61

• There was a long delay in the trial.

•Court ruled that a speedy trial is a fundamental guarantee of theU.S. Constitution.

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 62

Baker v. Wingo (1972)•Court held that the 6th

Amendment guarantees right to a quick trial. • The 6th Amendment

could illegally be violated even if

defendant does not object to delays.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 63

U.S. Supreme Court held that denial of a speedy trial

should result in dismissal of all charges.

Strunk v. U.S. ( 1973)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 64

Speedy Trial Act (1974)• Phases began in

1974 and became fully operational in 1980.

• Prosecution must seek indictment or information within

30 days of arrest.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 65

• Trial must begin within 70 days after indictment.

• The trial can be extended to 180 days if the defendant is not available or witnesses cannot be called within the 70 day limit.

Speedy Trial Act (1974)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 66

U.S. v. Taylor (1988)• Drug dealer escaped following

arrest.

•Court ruled that when delay is the result

of actions by the defendant, the 70 day rule does not apply.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 67

Doggett v. U.S. (1992)

•Defendant indicted on drug charges in 1980.

•Defendant left the country until 1982, when he returned.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 68

• Doggett lived openly in the U.S. until 1988 when he was re-arrested after a credit check revealed he was wanted.• Court ruled that there was

negligence on behalf of the federal government and overturned the lower court conviction.

Doggett v. U.S. (1992)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 69

“Even delay occasioned by the Government’s negligence creates a prejudice that compounds over time, and at some point, as here, becomes intolerable.”

Doggett v. U.S. (1992)

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 70

Jury SelectionVoir Dire Process

• Prospective jury members are called one at a time and are questioned by both the prosecution and defense to determine suitability.

• Jurors are expected to be unbiased and free of preconceived notions about guilt or innocence.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 71

Both the prosecution and defense can use challenges to remove prospective jurors from jury pool.

Both the prosecution and defense can use challenges to remove prospective jurors from jury pool.

• challenge to the array

• challenge for cause

• peremptory challenge

Jury Selection

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 72

ChallengesChallenge to the ArrayChallenge to the Array

• This challenge claims that the pool from which potential jurors are to be selected is not representative of the community.

• Typically, this is a motion filed by the defense prior to the actual voir dire.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 73

Challenge for Cause• This challenge claims that a prospective juror cannot be

impartial or fair.• Typically, each side has an unlimited number such challenges.• Courts have held that opposition to the death penalty may

mean a person cannot reach a conclusion based solely on the evidence.

Challenges

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 74

Peremptory ChallengePeremptory Challenge

• This challenge removes potential jurors without the need to

give a reason.

• This challenge is limited in number.

• Federal government and states vary in number allowed.

Challenges

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 75

Scientific Jury Selection• The use of social science

research techniques to select members of a jury.

• Focus groups and surveys are used to assess the likelihood that an

individual will be predisposed to a particular outcome.

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 76

The Trial Process• opening statements

by prosecution and defense

• presentation of evidence –

first by the state, then

defense

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 77

The Trial Process

• testimony of witnesses: victims, police officers,

defendant, specialists• closing arguments by

prosecution and defense

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 78

• judge’s charge to the jury

• jury deliberations and the verdict

The Trial Process