Judge: Defense, you may call your first witness. Defense Attorney: Thank you, your Honor. I call to the stand _____________________. Judge: Will the witness please stand to be sworn in by the bailiff. (Witness stands)
Full Answer
~~~~~Direct Examination (Defense) ~~~~~ Judge: Defense, you may call your first witness. Defense Attorney: Thank you, your Honor. I call to the stand _____. Judge: Will the witness please stand to be sworn in by the bailiff. (Witness stands)
The opening statement allows both sides to give the judge and jury an overview of the case, including what they plan to prove and how they plan to prove it (what evidence they will offer in support of their claims). Prosecutors and defense attorneys generally have considerable latitude in what they're allowed to say in opening statement.
Judge . District Attorney . Public Defender . Clerk . Deputy District Attorney . Guide . Car owner . Court Reporter . Police Officer . Expert . Defendant . Jurors (all those who are not assigned one of the above roles is a juror)
Feb 10, 2016 · Judge Fisher’s opinion reads, in part, as follows: [At the Sentencing Hearing] Moreno called eight character witnesses. Defense counsel asked questions of each, and the prosecutor questioned three of them. After the final witness, defense counsel informed the Court that Moreno wanted to exercise his right of allocution, [Moreno Addressed the ...
You· and each of you, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try this case before you, and a true verdict render, according to the evidence and the law so help you God? (Oath to jurors on trial) You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be held against you in a court of law.
The opening statement is the lawyer's first opportunity to address the jury in a trial. Generally, the party who bears the burden of proof (plaintiff in a civil case or prosecution in a criminal case) begins the opening statements, followed immediately after by the adverse party (defendant).
Judge: (After verdict is read) Thank you, Jury, for your service today. Court is adjourned. Any attorney may object to a question asked of a witness on the stand or the admission of an exhibit if s/he feels that it does not follow a rule of evidence.
An opening statement is made by the attorney for the plaintiff. The attorney for the defendant may then make an opening statement. The purpose of opening statements is to outline to the jury what each side contends the evidence will establish. A general idea of what the case is about is thus presented to the jury.
In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury.
The Sixth AmendmentThe Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in federal prosecutions. However, the right to counsel was not applied to state prosecutions for felony offenses until 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335.
On the one hand, judges decide by interpreting and applying the law, but much more affects judicial decision-making: psychological effects, group dynamics, numerical reasoning, biases, court processes, influences from political and other institutions, and technological advancement.
Things You Should Not Say in CourtDo Not Memorize What You Will Say. ... Do Not Talk About the Case. ... Do Not Become Angry. ... Do Not Exaggerate. ... Avoid Statements That Cannot Be Amended. ... Do Not Volunteer Information. ... Do Not Talk About Your Testimony.Sep 27, 2016
so, if someone was about to go into a court room, i would say to them “i hope you get a male judge. if you do, you'll probably be okay.” or if they know the judge is male before they go into the court room, you say “you'll be okay. you've got a male judge, so don't worry.” it might be sexist, but it's true.
The prosecutor must charge the accused with a specific crime or crimes, then present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The defense attorney must defend their client against criminal charges. The client is innocent until proven guilty.
Broadly defined, "hearsay" is testimony or documents quoting people who are not present in court. When the person being quoted is not present, establishing credibility becomes impossible, as does cross-examination. As such, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
In the American legal system, argumentative is an evidentiary objection raised in response to a question which prompts a witness to draw inferences from facts of the case. ... Thus, an argumentative objection may be raised only when the lawyer themself is making a legal argument under the guise of asking a question.
The prosecutor’s sentencing argument addressed Moreno’s statement and then argued that the seriousness of the offense had been ‘ratcheted up’ based on what he had been able to ‘drag out’ of Moreno on cross-examination. (App.1755). The prosecutor also referred to the cross-examination to undercut Moreno’s expression of remorse. (emphasis added)
When explaining the sentence, the District Court referenced the cross-examination in rejecting various defense arguments for a lower sentence. The District Court also noted Moreno’s admission during the cross-examination that he had prepared more than the 110 fraudulent appraisals that had been proven at trial. (emphasis added)
The government contends that the District Court did not err in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine Moreno because Rule 32 does not explicitly prohibit cross-examination and because neither the Supreme Court nor our Court of Appeals has ever specifically held that the practice is impermissible.
Jason Moreno was indicted on two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; and, five counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2. He pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial. On September 19, 2013, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all seven counts. On appeal, Moreno’s lawyer raised issues as to a Confrontation Clause violation, the admission of hearsay evidence and as to a four-level sentencing enhancement. Each of these grounds of error was rejected by the Court. What remained for the Court was the issue of allocution. Judge Fisher’s opinion reads, in part, as follows:
Moreno called eight character witnesses. Defense counsel asked questions of each, and the prosecutor questioned three of them. After the final witness, defense counsel informed the Court that Moreno wanted to exercise his right of allocution,
In his statement to the District Court, Moreno did not attempt to re-contest factual issues of guilt or innocence. To the contrary, Moreno presented personal characteristics and explained at length that, though he had gone to trial, he was accepting responsibility for his crimes.
It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall during the judges’ conference on Moreno. Judge Fischer was not a “rookie ‘judge.” She had been nominated by President George W. Bush and took the oath of office as a District Judge in February, 2007. The judges had surely seen cases in which the defendant’s lawyer failed to object; however, they had probably never seen one in which an Assistant United States Attorney cross-examined a defendant who had just finished his allocution to the court.
When the court directs all parties to appear for a settlement conference in court and tells the defense to have a representative from the insurance company present, all parties recognize that the judge is serious about trying to resolve their case and is willing to spend the time and effort to make it happen.
You will see hidden and subtle moves that could be a fake-out or an ambush. When you do not know your adversary and have not worked with him before, that may require you to have the Judge intervene in settlement discussions. This way you work through someone who is impartial and can filter out all the posturing.
It means strategizing and forecasting what a jury is likely to do with the same set of facts . Negotiating a case is similar to playing chess.
A mediation is an unofficial attempt to have a private settlement conference with the judge who has no interest in the outcome.
Negotiation is a combination of art and science. It is a combination of personalities and knowing what the other side wants. Successful negotiation requires a give and take and an understanding that you will not get all that you want and neither will the other side.
If a defendant pleads no contest, he acknowledges that the prosecutor has enough evidence to prove he committed a crime but does not admit guilt – in other words, that he did it. When a defendant enters this plea at arraignment, the court proceeds in the same way it would proceed if the defendant pleaded guilty.
A not guilty plea means simply that the defendant is going to make the state prove the case against him. Guilty . If a defendant pleads guilty to a very minor crime at arraignment, such as disorderly conduct, the judge may sentence the defendant at arraignment.
An arraignment is a court proceeding at which a criminal defendant is formally advised of the charges against him and asked to enter a plea to the charges. In many states, the court may also decide at arraignment whether the defendant will be released pending trial.
In some states, courts are required to advise defendants of certain constitutional rights at arraignment, such as the right to trial, the right to counsel, and the right against self-incrimination. In some state courts, defendants are advised of their rights as a group before appearing in front of the judge.
Criminal defendants usually have the option to waive arraignment, especially if a defendant has an attorney. Defense counsel can facilitate this process by communicating with the prosecutor and the court and submitting a waiver of arraignment in writing.
Supervised release. In addition or as an alternative to setting a bond or other conditions of release, the court can place a defendant in a supervised release program while his case is pending. In some states, this is known as pretrial supervision and is similar to being on probation while your case is pending.
A knowledgeable attorney can give you information about the arraignment process in your state and discuss your options with you. Having counsel represent you at arraignment can reduce the stress of the arraignment process for you and ultimately might make a difference in what conditions of release the court imposes.
Following a guilty or no contest plea, or a guilty verdict at trial, defendants will be sentenced, or receive their punishment, for their crimes. If convicted at trial, the presiding judge will determine the sentence of the convicted individual. Typically, judges will also approve plea deals worked out by defense attorneys ...
Depending on the state, you will be given a determinate, which specifies a specific length of incarceration, or indeterminate sentence, which does not specify a specific date, but only a maximum and minimum length.
Further confusing the sentencing laws regarding crimes, many states have issued mandatory minimum sentences for crimes, which are noted in their state criminal law code. In these cases, judges are required by legislative law to issue a minimum sentence for individuals convicted at trial. Additionally, three strikes laws in some states create further problems during the sentencing phase. For example, some individuals will face their third strike as the result of relatively minor offense, which will require them to serve lengthy prison sentences regardless. The Supreme Court has upheld these convictions, but for offenders with previous crimes before the enactment of the state three strikes rule, their legal rights get even murkier. As a good general guideline, there are certain characteristics that may persuade a judge to offer individuals more favorable sentences, including: 1 The demeanor, statements, and cooperation of defendants during the trial 2 The certain aspects of a given case that mitigate the responsibility of the individual as the main perpetrator of the crime 3 The past criminal history of an individual 4 The mindset and intentions of the individual during the crime in question 5 The results of the crime, such as personal injuries, property damages, or other expenses or personal costs 6 The determination of whether the crime was violent or predatory
For the most part, a judge can only sentence an individual to the death penalty upon the recommendation from the jury, and even then, the judge can refuse to do so.
For example, some individuals will face their third strike as the result of relatively minor offense, which will require them to serve lengthy prison sentences regardless.
Typically, judges will also approve plea deals worked out by defense attorneys and prosecutors prior to trial that resulted in no contest or guilty pleas. However, it is not mandatory that a judge do so, and in their best interest, defendants should place into writing stating their guilty plea is pending approval of the plea deal by the judge.
The past criminal history of an individual. The mindset and intentions of the individual during the crime in question. The results of the crime, such as personal injuries, property damages, or other expenses or personal costs. The determination of whether the crime was violent or predatory.