If there is any reason prospective jurors feel they should not serve, that reason should be made known during this questioning. If there is a question a prospective juror feels he or she cannot answer in public, a request may be made to tell the judge privately at the bench.
After the oath is administered, the trial begins. At the beginning of the trial, each side has the opportunity to make an opening statement explaining its case, but is not required to do so, except the prosecutor in a criminal trial. These statements are not evidence, but only an explanation of what each side claims and expects to prove during the trial.
Any claims made in the opening statement must be proven by evidence. In a criminal case, the offense is against the people of the state, and the lawyer representing the state is called the prosecutor. As noted above, the prosecutor is required to make an opening statement. Anything that tends to prove or disprove a claim about the facts is called evidence.
Evidence generally takes two forms, oral and documentary. Oral evidence comes in the form of testimony from witnesses. Documentary evidence may be something in writing, or it may be an article such as a photo or a sound recording.
Tangible evidence, such as a piece of an engine or another object, is called an exhibit. The trial judge manages the trial and rules on the admissibility of evidence. Evidence can also be the statement of a witness, a person who observed or participatedmin an event relevant to the subject of the trial. Whether an individual witness may give testimony is a decision made by the judge. In some cases, the parties may present the testimony of expert witnesses.
Rather, an expert witness is someone who, because of his or her qualifications, is in a position to evaluate certain evidence and render an opinion. The judge determines, prior to that person being permitted to testify, whether a witness is qualified, as a matter of law, as an expert.
If a witness is absent, written testimony or, in some cases, videotaped testimony, may have been taken before the trial, with the witness under oath, in a deposition. Parts of the transcript of a deposition may be admitted as evidence at a trial and will be considered with all other evidence presented in the case. To help prove a case, witnesses are generally called to testify. The witnesses are sworn to tell the truth. A lawyer who has called a witness proceeds with direct examination, asking questions of the witness that will bring out the facts of the case.
In any important matter, the lawyer, on direct examination, is not allowed to ask leading questions, which are questions in a form that would suggest the answer. The questions asked must also have some bearing on the case, and must be relevant by addressing things the witness would be expected to know. If these and other rules are not followed, a lawyer for the other side may object to the question.
If the question is improper, the judge will sustain the objection, which means that the question cannot be answered. If the question is proper, the judge will overrule the objection and the witness will be required to answer. When the direct examination is concluded, the lawyer for the other side may ask questions of the witness, which is known as cross-examining the witness.
The crossexamining lawyer is allowed to ask leading questions as described above. At the conclusion of the cross-examination, the first lawyer may ask questions to clarify points developed during the cross-examination. This is called redirect examination. If, during testimony by the witness, the judge rules that a portion of the testimony be stricken from the record, the trial judge will instruct the jury to disregard that portion of the testimony.
During both criminal and civil trials, the judge will give jurors instructions regarding the burden of proof that applies to that particular trial, as well as instructions on other areas of the law. After all the evidence has been presented, the lawyers may make their final arguments to the jury and give the reasons they believe their client should prevail. While you should listen to the closing arguments carefully, always remember that lawyers are only arguing for their side of the case.
What they say is not evidence. You should not make up your mind until you have heard all sides of the case and the instructions of the judge, and have had an opportunity to deliberate with your fellow jurors. The judge is responsible for making sure that the trial process proceeds in a proper manner. The judge is also responsible for deciding issues of law and procedure that may arise during the trial and for instructing the jury on the law.
During the trial, a lawyer might request a judge to take certain action. This is usually done by making a motion. For example, a lawyer may make a motion to strike certain testimony because it was not properly received.
If the judge orders the testimony stricken, the jury must disregard it and may not consider it during deliberations. A lawyer may also make a motion to prevent a witness from testifying. These motions are usually heard by the judge alone, after the jury has been excused to the jury room.
During a trial, a juror may notice the judge call the lawyers to the bench, or the lawyers may request to approach the bench to discuss a point of the case out of the hearing of the jury. Such discussions, commonly referred to as side bar discussions, are most often between the judge and lawyers and often concern matters of law or procedure.
Having lawyers approach the bench avoids the inconvenience of sending the jury from the courtroom. However, if the discussion is going to be lengthy, most judges will excuse the jury. Jurors should not attempt to draw any conclusions about what has been said out of their hearing.
The judge does not presume that you, as a juror, know what the law is on any given issue. Rather, at the end of the case the judge will tell you what the law is. You should listen very carefully to these instructions because they will guide your deliberations. The trial judge will identify one of the jurors as the foreperson. The foreperson does not carry any more weight in the deliberations than any other juror.
Once the jury has reached a verdict, the jury foreperson will report to the court officer that a verdict has been reached and the jurors will be called back into the courtroom where the jury foreperson will read the verdict.
There are certain rules that a juror should follow throughout the trial in order to be fair to all sides. During the trial, jurors should not talk about the case with other jurors, or with other persons, or allow people to talk about the case in their presence.
If a person persists, a juror should report the matter to the judge or a court official immediately. Jurors are given juror identification badges during their service so that no one mistakenly attempts to engage them in conversation regarding any case being heard. During the trial, jurors should not talk about the trial with witnesses, lawyers or anyone related to those persons or to the trial because it could appear that something unfair is going on even though the discussion may have nothing to do with the trial.
The judge may also instruct jurors not to listen to the radio, watch television reports or read articles regarding the trial. Even if the judge does not specifically prohibit it, jurors should not read or listen to news reports about the trial during their jury service.
Each day, American citizens just like you participate in our judicial process by serving as jurors. Because the guarantee of a trial by jury extends to a broader range of cases than in any other nation, the extensive use of trial by jury is unique to the United States. Juries may also have biases they are unaware of that may taint the case. As mentioned, bench trials are often the default when no other options are available or exist.
In some cases though, a bench trial may be required. Vacating a judgment, restraining orders, protective orders preventing a deposition, or any other court orders involving an equitable outcome will be heard by a judge. Some contracts require that the parties to the contract waive their right to trial by jury. The enforcement of a jury trial waiver will depend on the jurisdiction. Some states permit parties to waive their right to a jury in civil court. However, states like California frown on such agreements and have enacted laws that will null such jury trial waivers.
However, such jury trial waivers might still be honored if they are written to favor ADR rather than disfavor jury trials. Jury trials can be sidetracked or even outright prevented by an alternative dispute resolution agreement. In English, if the parties signed a contract that mandates the use of mediation or arbitration over a trial, then that contract provision will likely be enforced.
Most states prefer that parties settle their cases or use a private judge to decide their case rather than drain state resources to resolve it. The Federal Arbitration Act explicitly favors arbitrators over jury trials whenever a contract involving interstate commerce requests arbitration.
ADR over trial is very attractive to the federal and state governments, as it saves them a lot of time and money. However, the use of ADR is not without its controversies. Arbitration is not a fair and neutral substitute for a jury trial if the arbitrator is bought and paid by the defense. More importantly, many contracts are not negotiable. Cell phone service plans, hospital and emergency fees, and bank fees, among other agreements, are not negotiable despite the impact that such services have on the consumer.
We've helped over 5 million people. Get Started. Get Legal Help Now. Family Law. Throughout a civil trial, plaintiffs will seek to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant parties somehow committed wrongdoing in the dispute being heard by the judge and jury. In attempting to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant or defendants committed wrongdoing, plaintiffs have two forms of evidence that are permissible in the courts, including direct and circumstantial evidence.
Factual evidence is known as direct evidence, which is seemingly prima facie in itself. Circumstantial evidence, however, attempts to infer or insinuate facts to a judge and jury and may suggest the wrongdoings of defendant parties.
As part of the presentation of evidence by plaintiffs, witnesses will be called to the stand for direct examination. During this phase, plaintiff attorneys will pose questions to witnesses surrounding the dispute in contests, as well as in some instances, solicit the opinions and conclusions of expert witnesses on a specific matter.
During the cross examination of witnesses, defendant attorneys will seek to impeach, or otherwise discredit, the testimony of witnesses in a number of manners including questioning their moral turpitude, or history of being honest. Additionally, attorneys cross-examining witnesses may produce leading questions that will attempt to promote inconsistencies in a witness' testimony during the direct examination phase.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's presentation of evidence, the defense will attempt to motion for dismissal or a directed verdict of the suit by the judge for the inability of the plaintiff to produce a preponderance of the evidence proving their liability. Typically, a judge will deny this motion, and the defense must proceed in presenting their contentions and evidence. Additionally, defense attorneys in a civil case can present witnesses, directly examine them, and re-cross examine previous witnesses.
Following the defense presentation of evidence, plaintiffs are afforded to opportunity to refute these claims through the rebuttal phase of a civil trial.
0コメント