78
© 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

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: © 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

Page 2: © 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

Page 3: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 3

Courtroom Work Group

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

OthersOthers

Courtroom Work Group

Page 4: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 5: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 5

• maintains discipline in court• sentences offenders

found guilty• determines guilt when jury is not

used

ProfessionalsJudgeJudge

Page 6: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 7: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 7

Judicial Selection

Federal Level

• appointed by the President of the U.S.

• confirmed by the U.S. Senate

Page 8: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 8

Three methods of selection:• popular election • gubernatorial

appointment• Missouri Plan

State Level

Judicial Selection

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

© 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.

Page 10: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 11: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 12: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 12

Prosecuting Attorney

Also called:Also called:

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

Page 13: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 13

Prosecutor

Federal prosecutors are called U.S. attorneys.

Page 14: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 14

Prosecutor

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

Page 15: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 15

ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities

Prosecutor

•presents information/ evidence to the grand

jury•decides which charges are

to be filed against the defendant

Page 16: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 16

Prosecutor

Responsibilities Responsibilities

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

Page 17: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 17

• argues in favor of conviction

• files appeals on behalf of state to appellate court

Prosecutor ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities

Page 18: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 18

• argues briefs before appellate court

• makes presentations to parole boards

Prosecutor ResponsibilitiesResponsibilities

Page 19: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 20: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 20

U.S. v. Bagley (1985)

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

Page 21: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 22: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 23: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.”

Page 24: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 25: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 26: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 26

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

Page 27: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 28: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 29: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 29

Defense Counsel• represents the accused• participates in plea

negotiations• prepares an

adequate defense• calls witnesses

Page 30: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 30

• disputes case presented by prosecutor

• presents arguments at time of sentencing

• files appeals

Defense Counsel

Page 31: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 31

Types of Defense CounselTypes of Defense Counsel

• private attorneys• court appointed

counsel• public defenders

Defense Counsel

Page 32: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 33: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 34: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 35: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 36: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 37: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 38: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 38

Criminal Defense of the Poor

Three Types of ProgramsThree Types of Programs

• court assigned counsel

• public defenders

• contract attorneys

Page 39: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 40: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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).

Page 41: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 41

Public Defender Program

uses full-time salaried attorneys

Page 42: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 43: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 44: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 45: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 46: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 47: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 48: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 48

Bailiff• charged with ensuring

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

witnesses

Page 49: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 49

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

Bailiff

Page 50: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 50

maintains physical custody of and supervises jury during deliberations and sequestering

Bailiff

Page 51: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 51

Local Court Administrators

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

court management

Page 52: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 53: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 54: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 55: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 56: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 56

OutsidersNon-professional courtroom participantsNon-professional courtroom participants

• jurors

• victim

• defendant

• lay witnesses

• press

Page 57: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 58: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 58

The Criminal Trial

Page 59: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and 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)

Page 60: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 60

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)

Civil Disobedience Trial

Duke University professor involved in protest against

segregated facilities.

Page 61: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 62: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 63: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 64: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 65: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 66: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 67: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 68: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 69: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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)

Page 70: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 71: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 72: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 73: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 74: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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

Page 75: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 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.

Page 76: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 76

The Trial Process• opening statements

by prosecution and defense

• presentation of evidence –

first by the state, then

defense

Page 77: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 77

The Trial Process

• testimony of witnesses: victims, police officers,

defendant, specialists• closing arguments by

prosecution and defense

Page 78: © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.1 Chapter 9 The Courtroom Work Group and the Criminal Trial

© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. 78

• judge’s charge to the jury

• jury deliberations and the verdict

The Trial Process