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

Courtroom Work Group Professionals judge prosecuting attorney defense attorney bailiff court reporter clerk of the court expert witnesses © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Courtroom Work Group Courtroom Work Group Others lay witnesses jurors defendant(s) victim(s) © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Professionals Judge primary duty - to ensure justice takes place rules on matters of the law decides on admissibility of evidence © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Professionals Judge maintains discipline in court sentences offenders found guilty determines guilt when jury is not used © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

Judicial Selection Federal Level appointed by the President of the U.S. confirmed by the U.S. Senate © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Judicial Selection State Level Three methods of selection: popular election gubernatorial appointment Missouri Plan © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

Prosecuting Attorney Also called: solicitor district attorney state’s attorney prosecutor © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Federal prosecutors are called U.S. attorneys. © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Prosecutor At the state level, most prosecutors are elected for a four-year term. Five states appoint their prosecutors. © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Prosecutor presents information/ evidence to the grand jury Responsibilities presents information/ evidence to the grand jury decides which charges are to be filed against the defendant © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Prosecutor introduces evidence against defendant at trial Responsibilities introduces evidence against defendant at trial directs testimony of witnesses for the state © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Prosecutor argues in favor of conviction Responsibilities argues in favor of conviction files appeals on behalf of state to appellate court © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Prosecutor argues briefs before appellate court Responsibilities argues briefs before appellate court makes presentations to parole boards © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

U.S. v. Bagley (1985) The Court ruled that prosecution must disclose any evidence that the defense requests. © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Abuse of Discretion By virtue of their position, prosecutors may be ethically challenged as follows... © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

Defense Counsel represents the accused participates in plea negotiations prepares an adequate defense calls witnesses © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Defense Counsel disputes case presented by prosecutor presents arguments at time of sentencing files appeals © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Types of Defense Counsel private attorneys court appointed counsel public defenders © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) 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.

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.

Three Types of Programs Criminal Defense of the Poor Three Types of Programs court assigned counsel public defenders contract attorneys © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

Public Defender Program uses full-time salaried attorneys © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indigent Offender Representation 1% of federally charged defendants represent themselves. 3% of defendants charged at the state level represent themselves. © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

ABA Ethical Guidelines 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.

Bailiff charged with ensuring order in the courtroom announces entry of judge calls out names of witnesses © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Bailiff maintains control over the defendant if person has not been released on bail © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Bailiff maintains physical custody of and supervises jury during deliberations and sequestering © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Local Court Administrators facilitate the smooth running of courts in particular judicial districts or courts provide uniform court management © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Non-professional courtroom participants Outsiders Non-professional courtroom participants jurors victim defendant lay witnesses press © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

The Criminal Trial © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

Trial Initiation: Speedy Trial Act/Cases 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.

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) Civil Disobedience Trial Duke University professor involved in protest against segregated facilities. © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jury Selection challenge to the array challenge for cause 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Trial Process opening statements by prosecution and defense presentation of evidence – first by the state, then defense © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

The Trial Process testimony of witnesses: victims, police officers, defendant, specialists closing arguments by prosecution and defense © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.

The Trial Process judge’s charge to the jury jury deliberations and the verdict © 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc.