The plaintiff always goes first, which means they get to set the tone for jury selection. Especially in an injury suit or wrongful death case, the goal is to get the jury to sympathize with the suffering of their client. Prosecution or Plaintiff Jurors: the Good and the Bad
While many judges begin their legal careers as lawyers, holding a law degree is not always a requirement for serving as a judge. Whether you must be a lawyer before serving as a judge depends on the requirements of the jurisdiction where you will serve.
“Rule of thumb: look for deviations in the potential juror’s behavior.” Look for such visual cues as body movement, body orientation, body posture, shrugs, eye contact and facial expressions. Also look for auditory cues, including voice pitch, tone, vocal hesitancy and word choice. Another key to look for is leadership and group dynamics.
The process of jury selection is called "voir dire," and the role of an attorney is to identify which potential jurors will be helpful to their cases and which jurors may hold a bias toward their clients. The considerations for voir dire can vary to some extent, depending on whether the case is a criminal or civil trial.
Picking the Jury – The “Voir Dire” Process. The process of picking a final jury (formally known as “voir dire”) begins on the day of trial when an initial group of people are called into the courtroom from the jury pool. The judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney may then question the prospective jurors.
The Right to Present a Defense Usually, the prosecution first makes a closing argument, then the defense attorney. The prosecutor, who has the burden of proof, frequently gets the chance to respond to the defense's final argument.
Opening statements are followed by the case-in-chief. The prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney again goes first. They present evidence in the form of physical evidence or documents and also the testimony of witnesses.
Terms in this set (14)step 1: pre-trial proceedings. ... step 2: jury is selected. ... step 3: opening statement by plaintiff or prosecution. ... step 4: opening statement by defense. ... step 5: direct examination by plaintiff/ prosecution. ... step 6: cross examination by defense. ... step 7: motions to dismiss or ask for a directed verdict.More items...
The prosecutor makes an opening statement first because the Government has the burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime.
Order of Events in a TrialOpening Statement: The lawyers for each side will explain the case, the evidence they plan to present, and the issues for the jury to decide.Presentation of Evidence: ... Rulings by the Judge: ... Instructions to the Jury: ... Closing Arguments: ... Deliberation:
7 Stages To A Criminal TrialVoir Dire. Voir Dire is a fancy French word used to name jury selection. ... Opening Statement. After the jury is empaneled, the trial will begin with opening statements. ... State's Case in Chief. ... The Defense Case. ... State's Rebuttal. ... Closing Arguments. ... Verdict.
12 Steps Of A Trial Flashcards PreviewOpening statement made by the prosecutor or plaintiff. ... Opening statement made by the defendant. ... Direct examination by plaintiff or prosecutor. ... Cross examination by defense. ... Motions. ... Direct examination by defense. ... Cross examination by prosecutor or plaintiff.More items...
Plaintiff Testimony - The first part of the actual trial proceeding consists of the plaintiffs presenting their witnesses and experts to present the arguments and justifications for the complaint.
A criminal trial typically consists of six following phases:Choosing a Jury.Opening Statements.Witness Testimony and Cross-Examination.Closing Arguments.Jury Instruction.Jury Deliberation and Announcement of Verdict.
Both the defense and the prosecutor can call witnesses to testify or tell what they know about the situation. What the witness actually says in court is called testimony. In court, the witness is called to sit near the judge on the witness stand.
After the plaintiff is finished, the defendant has the opportunity to give a closing statement as well. The plaintiff may be given a last rebuttal (a chance to respond to the defendant's closing statement) since the plaintiff has the burden of proof in the case.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of M.P. Vs. Badri Yadav and another" [AIR 2006 SC 1769] has held that if a prosecution witness, who had been examined, cross- examined and discharged to be juxtaposed as defence witness, then he remains as a prosecution witness.
A defense attorney is a lawyer who defends a person or business against criminal charges. They may have their own private legal practices, or the government may employ them as public defenders.
A prosecutor is a lawyer and elected official that represents an individual or an entire body of citizens of a jurisdiction when they press legal charges against a person or corporation.
While both defense attorneys and prosecutors represent groups and individuals during a legal trial, their responsibilities and professional requirements differ. Here are some differences between a defense attorney and a prosecutor:
A defense attorney is the person that represents you in court. Just as the State of Illinois has an attorney in court trying to put you jail, a defense attorney is your advocate trying to get the case dismissed or to get the best possible disposition for you.
The Judge also applies the law to the case. Moreover, the Judge determines during a bench trial if a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime..
What are a Judge’s Duties? A Judge is similar to a referee. The Judge does not file charges against you nor do they decide to reduce the charges against you . A Judge has several duties. First, he or she is to keep the case moving. He or she makes sure that the two parties (the prosecutor and the defense) do what they are required to do.
A State’s Attorney is the agency that brings the criminal charges against you. The State is the entity that can decide to file more charges or reduce the charges against you. The prosecutor can also decide to drop the charges against you.
During direct examination, the prosecutor can introduce evidence such as a weapon or something from the crime scene. Following the prosecutor’s examination of a witness, the defense attorney has an opportunity to cross examine or ask questions to the same witness.
In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury. A judge is similar to a referee in a game, they are not there to play for one side or the other but to make sure the entire process is played fairly.
During trial, the prosecutor uses witnesses and evidence to prove to the jury that the defendant committed the crime (s ). The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence. In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury.
This is called redirect examination. Once the process of direct examination, cross examination, and redirect of all the witnesses is complete, the prosecutor rests his case.
The prosecutor makes an opening statement first because the Government has the burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime.
For example, a prosecutor or defense attorney may object to the wide range of the direct examination because it is beyond the knowledge of the witness, the attorney may be arguing with the witness rather than asking questions, or the witness may be talking about things irrelevant to the case. Common objections include:
After the prosecutor rests, no more witnesses can be called to the stand or evidence introduced by the government. After the Government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence to the jury. The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify.
The plaintiff will tell a jury a story of how their client was victimized by the defense, how they’ve suffered at the hands of the defendant.
Selecting the jury is the only time an attorney has the opportunity to discover the life experiences, biases, beliefs, and attitudes of the people who will decide their case. The last thing any attorney wants is for bias to come out during the trial. Thus, how lawyers pick jurors is an essential indicator of the experience and knowledge ...
When the plaintiff picks jurors, they’re looking for those who are very sympathetic, who are willing to view the prosecution as the victim in the case. Very often, union employees make for good prosecution jurors as they are used to fighting injustice.
Voir Dire is the process of interviewing potential jurors, a preliminary interview where each side gets to talk to the jury. This is a key part of how lawyers pick jurors. It affords the attorney the opportunity to work out bias, pick those jurors that will most benefit their case, and eliminate those who present a danger or a problem.
In this case, “undesirable” means people who are likely to sympathize with the defense.
Jury selection is a bit like ping pong, volleyball or tennis game where there’s no out of bounds. The ball is always in motion, and there’s a constant back-and-forth going, where it’s important to always react to what you’re getting, without hesitation.
Good Jurors for the Defense. From a defense standpoint, most of the jurors that look bad for the prosecution are good for the defense. You want people who can relate to the defense, and who were on the defending end of an injury case.
The process of jury selection should result in a fair jury, though lawyers will often use the selection questions to make sure that jurors will be receptive to their theory of the case.
Similar personal experiences could cause a potential juror to ignore the judge’s instructions to decide the case based on the evidence and the law without “passion or prejudice.”. When a potential juror has had a life experience closely resembling the facts of the case, that person will likely be excused by the court.
Its primary purpose is to make sure that the jurors can listen fairly and impartially to the evidence and render a verdict in accordance with ...
Experienced attorneys ask questions to get a sense of how a juror will respond to the evidence and arguments in the case about to be tried. In most federal courts, lawyers submit questions to the judge, who will then question the potential jurors in open court. In state courts, however, lawyers are typically permitted to question ...
By using a peremptory challenge, a lawyer can dismiss a potential juror from the case without giving any reason to the judge.
If questionnaires are not used, lawyers or judges simply ask all of their questions in open court. Potential jurors may be questioned as a group or one at a time.
A “for cause” dismissal means the court has agreed with at least one lawyer’s argument about the unsuitability of a potential juror (or has reached this conclusion on its own). A lawyer can raise an unlimited number of “for cause” challenges during jury selection.
For each witness, there may be two or more steps to the testimony: Direct examination. First, the prosecutor will ask questions intended to bring out the witness’s story. Cross-examination.
Before the trial, as part of the evidence-sharing process known as “ discovery ,” defendants are normally entitled to receive the names and statements of the witnesses that the prosecution plans to call (although prosecutors may not always have to reveal the names of confidential informants). Defendants also have a right to any information that prosecutors have about the identity or whereabouts of other witnesses who might be able to provide relevant testimony for the defense.
Criminal trials follow the same basic order. Following opening statements, the prosecution presents its evidence, including its witnesses. For each witness, there may be two or more steps to the testimony: 1 Direct examination. First, the prosecutor will ask questions intended to bring out the witness’s story. 2 Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility. 3 Redirect and recross examination. After the cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask the witness more questions, usually to clarify parts of the testimony or address issues that came up during the cross. Then, the defense attorney also has another chance at further questioning, usually to discuss new subjects discussed during the redirect.
That personal knowledge is one reason witness testimony can be so persuasive to juries. Sometimes, witness testimony is the only evidence that places the defendant at (or far from) the crime scene. Other times, witnesses provide the context that supports or undermines other evidence. Either way, there are general rules for how ...
Criminal defendants have the right under the Sixth Amendment’s “confrontation clause” to be present when witnesses are testifying against them and to cross-examine those witnesses. There may be exceptions, however, when witnesses aren’t available to testify at trial. Depending on the circumstances, certain types of reliable statements from unavailable witnesses might be admitted as evidence, such as previous testimony at a preliminary hearing or deposition where the defendant’s attorney was able to question the witness.
Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility.
After the prosecution finishes, or “rests,” its case, the defense presents its own evidence and witnesses, going through the same steps as the prosecution. (Sometimes, defense attorneys choose not to present any evidence if they believe the prosecution didn’t prove its case.)