Criminal Trial Process Paper
Introduction:
In Canada, our criminal trial process is based around an adversarial system. What this means is that the disputants are represented by professionals in the field of law. These professionals are called lawyers. The lawyers work so that the truth of the trial is brought forward and justice is served for the greater community. In the adversarial system it is believed that the search for truth is best served by the parties themselves, through their lawyers and not through the judge. This means that lawyers determine the issue in dispute and decide the best way to argue them. Judges generally play a very passive role in the trial process. Their job is merely to ensure a fair trial for the accused, and to make an unbiased, neutral decision at the end of the trial. This decision is based upon the evidence brought forward by the two teams of lawyers during the criminal trial.
Key Players:
In the adversarial system there are three, and sometimes four key players that make up the criminal trial process. These key players are the Crown attorney, the defence attorney and the judge or justice or the court. There is however in some cases juries involved in the trial process as well. The Crown attorney represents what is seen as the king or queen of the country, however they in actual fact represent the police officers and other law enforcers as well as the general public. The Crown has a very difficult and burdening job. They must find the accused, which is the person being charged, guilty of committing the crime. This decision must be considered and thought to be without a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a very hard concept to define. It is based around the “golden thread” of English law, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by his or her accuser. The courts, themselves can not even come up with an exact definition, but have tried their best through this explanation. The concept of whether or not the general public would see as a calmative group a bona fide and required limit on the situation. This limit must be logical and for the purpose of a greater good. Thus the Crown attorney carries an extremely heavy burden when attempting to find the accused guilty of his or her charges. This is thought to give the accused the fairest trial possible.
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
The English court system is adversarial in nature whereby the court takes the role of a moderator and pities the parties against each other so as each can prove their own case. Therefore, each party seeking to be believed will approach the court and give an account of the events that make up the dispute. The court will later on come to a final conclusion on who is liable or if the accused is guilty after considering all the facts, the documents adduced.
Cole, D. P. (2008). A Day in the Life of a Judge. In Criminal Justice in Canada: a Reader (3rd ed., pp. 59-75). Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
The judges that are a part of this group has many different roles, some of which are to issues warrants, making a determination of probable cause in evidence, denying or granting bail to offenders, overseeing trials, making rulings on different motions and even overseeing hearings. The prosecuting attorney is the one who will represent that state in c...
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
This stage is an examination of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Ideally, voir dire will result in an impartial jury for the trial of the accused. On March 4, 2004 jury selection began for the trial of Scott Peterson. Nearly 100 potential jurors began answering questionnaires about their views on the death penalty and their opinions on extramarital affairs. The nearly 30-page questionnaire given to prospective jurors also included questions as whether they read Field and Stream, what stickers grace their car bumpers and whether they have lost a child. On April 14, 2004 Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed an unidentified Redwood City woman after a brief meeting in his chambers. Defense attorney Mark Geragos two weeks early had accused the retired secretary of bragging to her friends on a bus trip to Reno, Nevada, that she has "passed the test" to get on Peterson's jury and that Peterson was "guilty as hell" and would "get what's due him." May 28, 2004 six men and six women were selected for Scott Peterson's murder trial all said they would be willing to sentence him to death if they convict him of killing his wife and the couple's fetus.
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
Judges preside over criminal and non-criminal proceeding as an impartial party to the evidence and arguments presented by the defense and prosecuting attorneys. His or her role as a judge in a jury trial is to act as a mediator between the defense and prosecution ensuring proper court room procedures are being followed to guarantee that a fair trial is administered. Judges are charged with hearing testimony, arguments and viewing evidence determining what is strong enough to support proof beyond reasonable doubt and passes judgment of guilt or innocents based on facts presented (Judges Role in Court, n.d.). Similarly, juries will take on the judge’s role in a trial by jury to determine proof beyond reasonable doubt of prove guilt or innocents. Judges in any case can remove testimony, statements or evidence from any portion of the trial if he or she feels it to be not in accordance procedure, not pertinent, bias, corrupt or weak. Last, once a defendant is convicted the
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
Many of the judges can become corrupt over their years of serving. Most judges begin to accept bribes and many different things that will help out one side. They have the power of what can be said in their court and what cannot be. This can make it much easier for them to favor one side or the other. They can also become more of a referee then a judge according to John F. Molloy who wrote the book The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion. This book was about all of the different reasons why he believed the court system was corrupt. He also states that judges will create their own laws based on their own opinions and rulings. Knowing this how are we supposed to believe that we are going to be receiving a fair trial. Are they always going to be siding with the defense team or are they going to be on your
...ire justice system (Reece, 2014). That includes juries, witnesses, prosecutors, and defence lawyers. In the Provincial Superior Court there's courts of appeals (Reece, 2014). Their role in the system is to go over the statutes and cases to make sure no errors were present in terms of fairness (Reece, 2014). The provincial appeal courts always contains 3-5 judges, no juries, and has private deliberations (Reece, 2014).
The intellectual battle between police officers and suspects has been ongoing since laws were created. Who did it? Being one of the most popular questions around the globe. There is a multitude of different way to figure out who did it, but one of the most common, and often the only, piece of evidence and investigator can gather is a confession. To get these confessions investigators often use a harsh and aggressive method of interrogation known as the Reid technique. The Reid technique uses a multitude of morally questionable methods to gather a confession such as intimidation, telling the suspect that there is evidence placing them at the scene, and continually refusing to accept the denial of the suspect. These interrogations can also last
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.
The basic role of the Canadian court system is to deliver justice between two individuals or two individuals and the state. This is achieved through four levels of court. These are the provincial courts, the provincial and territorial superior courts as well as the Federal Court, the provincial courts of appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal and the most powerful, the Supreme Court. All judges are appointed by the Federal government and the provincial government. All of this is done for the needs of the public.