Chapter 9
The
Courtroom
Work Group
and the
Criminal
Trial
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
1
Courtroom Work Group
Professionals
• judge
• prosecuting attorney
• defense attorney
• bailiff
• court reporter
• clerk of the court
• expert witnesses
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
2
Courtroom Work Group
Others
• lay witnesses
• jurors
• defendant(s)
• victim(s)
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
3
Professionals
Judge
• primary duty - to
ensure justice
takes place
• rules on matters of
the law
• decides on
admissibility of
evidence
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
4
Professionals
Judge
• maintains discipline in
court
• sentences offenders
found guilty
• determines guilt when jury is not
used
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
5
Professionals
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
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
6
Judicial Selection
Federal Level
• appointed by the
President of
the U.S.
• confirmed by the
U.S. Senate
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
7
Judicial Selection
State Level
Three methods of
selection:
• popular election
• gubernatorial
appointment
• Missouri Plan
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
8
Missouri Plan
• The Missouri Plan incorporates
elements of both popular
election and appointment.
• When a vacancy
occurs, the public
votes to retain the
judge or to have a
new appointment
made.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
9
Missouri Plan
• 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.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
10
Judges: Qualifications
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.
11
Prosecuting Attorney
Also called:
•
•
•
•
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
solicitor
district attorney
state’s attorney
prosecutor
12
Prosecutor
Federal prosecutors are
called U.S. attorneys.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
13
Prosecutor
• At the state level,
most prosecutors
are elected for a
four-year term.
• Five states appoint
their prosecutors.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
14
Prosecutor
Responsibilities
• presents information/
evidence to the grand jury
• decides which charges are
to be filed against the
defendant
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
15
Prosecutor
Responsibilities
• introduces evidence
against defendant at
trial
• directs testimony of
witnesses for the state
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
16
Prosecutor
Responsibilities
• argues in favor of
conviction
• files appeals on behalf of
state to appellate court
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
17
Prosecutor
Responsibilities
• argues briefs before
appellate court
• makes presentations to
parole boards
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
18
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.
19
U.S. v. Bagley (1985)
The Court ruled that
prosecution must
disclose any
evidence that the
defense requests.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
20
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.
21
Prosecutor Liability
Imbler v. Pachtman (1976)
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
“state prosecutors are
absolutely immune
from liability…for
their conduct in
initiating and presenting the
State’s case.”
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
22
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.
23
Burns v. Reed (1991)
In this case, the
prosecutor told
police it would be alright to
hypnotize a defendant, who
then confessed while
hypnotized.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
24
Burns v. Reed (1991)
The defendant charged
that evidence obtained
while she was
hypnotized was
inadmissible, and
that prosecutor
knew this.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
25
Abuse of Discretion
By virtue of their
position, prosecutors
may be ethically
challenged as follows...
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
26
Abuse of Discretion
• not prosecuting friends
• accepting guilty pleas for
drastically reduced
charges for personal
considerations
• overzealous prosecution to
gain visibility for
possible re-election
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
27
Abuse of Discretion
• scheduling activities to
make life difficult for
defendants, in an attempt
to put pressure on them to
plead guilty
• discriminating against
minorities
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
28
Defense Counsel
• represents the accused
• participates in plea
negotiations
• prepares an
adequate defense
• calls witnesses
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
29
Defense Counsel
• disputes case presented by
prosecutor
• presents arguments at time
of sentencing
• files appeals
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
30
Defense Counsel
Types of Defense Counsel
• private attorneys
• court appointed
counsel
• public defenders
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
31
Criminal Defense of the Poor
Important 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.
32
Criminal Defense of the Poor
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.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
33
Criminal Defense of the Poor
Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)
U.S. Supreme Court
established the right
of indigent offenders
to have legal counsel
appointed for them
in all federal cases.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
34
Criminal Defense of the Poor
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
This case extended the
right to appointed
counsel for
indigents in all
felony cases.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
35
Criminal Defense of the Poor
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
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).
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
36
Criminal Defense of the Poor
In re Gault (1967)
The U.S. Supreme Court
extended the right to
legal counsel for
juveniles charged
with a delinquent
act.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
37
Criminal Defense of the Poor
Three Types of Programs
• court assigned counsel
• public defenders
• contract attorneys
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
38
Court Assigned Counsel
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.
39
Court Assigned Counsel
Fee paid based on state rate
(most widely used).
Roster of local
attorneys who
are willing to take
cases under
established fees.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
40
Public Defender Program
uses full-time
salaried
attorneys
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
41
Public Defender Program
• 28% of counties nationwide
use this system
exclusively.
• 64% of counties nationwide
use public
defenders as
part of their system.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
42
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.
43
Indigent Offender
Representation
Faretta v. California (1975)
2.3% of all money spent
on criminal justice is
used to pay defense
counsel for indigent
offenders.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
44
Indigent Offender
Representation
Faretta v. California (1975)
Indigents are not required
to accept counsel. They
may waive their rights and
represent themselves.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
45
Indigent Offender
Representation
1% of federally charged defendants
represent themselves.
3% of defendants charged at the
state level represent themselves.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
46
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.
47
Bailiff
• charged with ensuring
order in the courtroom
• announces entry of judge
• calls out names of
witnesses
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
48
Bailiff
maintains
control over the
defendant if
person has not
been released
on bail
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
49
Bailiff
maintains physical custody
of and supervises jury
during deliberations and
sequestering
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
50
Local Court
Administrators
• facilitate the smooth running
of courts in particular
judicial districts or courts
• provide uniform
court management
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
51
Local Court
Administrators
• relieve judges of many routine
and repetitive tasks
• manage jurors
• track lengthy cases and
identify bottlenecks
in court processing
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
52
Court Reporter
• Another name for court
reporter is “court
stenographer.”
• They create a written
record of all court
proceedings.
• Transcripts are
necessary if an
appeal is to be filed.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
53
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.
54
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.
55
Outsiders
Non-professional courtroom participants
• jurors
• victim
• defendant
• lay witnesses
• press
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
56
Defendant
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.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
57
The Criminal Trial
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
58
The Criminal Trial
Trial 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.
59
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
Civil Disobedience Trial
Duke University professor
involved in protest against
segregated facilities.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
60
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
• There was a long delay in
the trial.
• Court ruled that a speedy
trial is a fundamental
guarantee of the
U.S. Constitution.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
61
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.
62
Strunk v. U.S. ( 1973)
U.S. Supreme Court held
that denial of a speedy trial
should result
in dismissal
of all charges.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
63
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.
64
Speedy Trial Act (1974)
• 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.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
65
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.
66
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.
67
Doggett v. U.S. (1992)
• 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.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
68
Doggett v. U.S. (1992)
“Even delay occasioned by the
Government’s negligence
creates a prejudice that
compounds over time, and at
some point, as here,
becomes intolerable.”
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
69
Jury Selection
Voir 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.
70
Jury Selection
Both the prosecution and defense can
use challenges to remove prospective
jurors from jury pool.
• challenge to the array
• challenge for cause
• peremptory challenge
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
71
Challenges
Challenge 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.
72
Challenges
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.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
73
Challenges
Peremptory 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.
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
74
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.
75
The Trial Process
• opening statements
by prosecution and
defense
• presentation of
evidence – first by
the state, then
defense
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
76
The Trial Process
• testimony of witnesses:
victims, police officers,
defendant, specialists
• closing arguments by
prosecution and defense
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
77
The Trial Process
• judge’s charge to the
jury
• jury deliberations and
the verdict
© 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.
78