United States criminal procedure

Last updated

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure (such as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure); and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

Contents

Sources of law

U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution, including the United States Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, contains the following provisions regarding criminal procedure. Due to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, all of these provisions apply equally to criminal proceedings in state courts, with the exception of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and (maybe) the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

Federal statutes and rules

Federal statutes and rules apply to criminal proceedings in federal courts, such as:

State statutes and rules

Each state has its own statutes and rules of criminal proceeding applying to proceedings in its courts.

Charging instruments

In a criminal case, the government generally brings charges in one of two ways: either by accusing a suspect directly in a "bill of information" or other similar document, or by bringing evidence before a grand jury to allow that body to determine whether the case should proceed. If the grand jury determines that there is enough evidence to justify the bringing of charges, then the defendant is indicted. In the federal system, a case must always be brought before a grand jury for indictment if it is punishable by death or more than one year in prison; [1] some states, however, do not require indictment.

Petit juries

Once charges have been brought, the case is then brought before a petit jury, (or what is commonly recognized as the normal courtroom jury of six to twelve members), or is tried by a judge alone, if the defense requests it. Any petit jury is selected from a pool by the prosecution and defense.

After both sides have presented their cases and made closing arguments, the judge gives the jury legal instructions; the jury then adjourns to deliberate in private. The jury generally must unanimously agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty; however, the Supreme Court has upheld non unanimous jury verdicts, so long as the jury is larger than 6 people. In 1972, the Court upheld convictions in Apodaca v. Oregon [2] and Johnson v. Louisiana [3] where Oregon and Louisiana convicted Petitioners on 10-to-2 and 9-to-3 verdicts respectively. In 1979, the Court ruled in Burch v. Louisiana that where a jury was made of 6 people, the verdict must be unanimous. [4]

Presentation of evidence

The prosecution gives an opening statement that summarizes its general arguments. The defense can then present its opening statement or may opt to wait until the prosecution has finished presenting its complete case. The prosecution presents its case first. This is done by calling witnesses to give testimony and by presenting physical evidence that will prove the defendant is guilty of the crime. Witnesses are people who can give testimony that will help prove the guilt of the defendant. They may have actually seen events related to the crime, may have relevant information about the defendant, or may be able to give expert testimony concerning the evidence or have other important information. After the prosecution finishes, it is the time for the defense to address the court.

The defense may start by asking the judge to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. If the judge agrees the evidence is insufficient to prove the defendant committed the crime without a reasonable doubt, the case will be dismissed and the defendant will be free of the charges. Usually, the judge does not dismiss the case. At this time, the defense will give its opening statement if it has not already done so. The defense then proceeds to present its case by calling witnesses and submitting evidence that will prove the defendant did not commit the crime. All witnesses may be cross-examined by the opposing side while testifying. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the defendant is not required to be a witness in his own defense. If he does not testify, the jury can not hold this against him. Also under the Fifth Amendment, a witness has the right not to incriminate himself. This means the witness is not required to answer any question if doing so would incriminate himself. After the defense finishes presenting its case, each side gives a closing statement summarizing the evidence that supports its position of either guilt or innocence. The closing statements are given in the same order, with the defense going last. Then the deliberation phase of the trial begins.

Verdict

Burden of proof

The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal trial. This means the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime. The defense has no burden of proof and is presumed innocent during all stages of a criminal trial.

Deliberation

Once the prosecution and defense present their cases, the judge will give the case to the jury. First the judge will instruct the jury about any legal rules that may affect their decision. The judge then sends the jury to the jury room to deliberate about whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges. During the trial the jury is not allowed to read about the case or discuss it with anyone, even each other. Sometimes juries are sequestered or kept together, away from their homes and any media coverage of the trial.

Once deliberation begins the jurors are allowed to talk to each other. They are to remain together, except overnight, until they either reach a decision or determine they cannot reach a decision. In the latter occurrence, the jury is said to be deadlocked and is called a hung jury. If the jury decides, this is called the verdict. They inform the judge and return to the courtroom where the verdict is read. The judge may either accept the verdict or overrule it. It is rare for the verdict to be overruled. This happens when the judge thinks the verdict is unlawful. Often this is because the jury does not follow the legal instructions. It can also happen if the judge thinks the jury interpreted the evidence in a manner that was not legal. Once the verdict is determined, the trial moves to the punishment phase. This can simply be the judge issuing the punishment sentence or, in more serious cases, can involve a separate hearing.

Sentencing

If a defendant is found guilty, sentencing follows, often at a separate hearing after the prosecution, defense, and court have developed information based on which the judge will craft a sentence. The United States Sentencing Commission has promulgated guidance on what restitution and prison terms should be assessed for different crimes. [5] In capital cases, a separate "penalty phase" occurs, in which the jury determines whether to recommend that the death penalty should be imposed. As with the determination of guilt phase, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case, and the defendant is entitled to take the stand in his or her own defense, and may call witnesses and present evidence.

Appeals

After sentencing, the case enters the post conviction phase. Usually the defendant begins serving the sentence immediately after the sentence is issued. The defendant may appeal the outcome of his trial to a higher court. American appellate courts do not retry the case. These courts only examine the record of the proceedings of the lower court to determine if errors were made that require a new trial, resentencing, or a complete dismissal of the charges. The prosecution may not appeal after an acquittal, although it may appeal under limited circumstances before the verdict is rendered. The prosecution may also appeal the sentence itself. Increasingly, there is also a recognition that collateral consequences of criminal charges may result from the sentence that are not explicitly part of the sentence itself.

See also

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law - in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions only bars an identical prosecution for the same offence, however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger - it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty", the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which they had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from relitigating a question already decided in favor of a defendant at a previous trial. Here, the guarantee against double jeopardy enforceable through the Fifth Amendment provided that where the defendant was acquitted of robbing one victim, the government could not prosecute the criminal defendant in a second trial for a different victim in the same robbery.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Italian Code of Criminal Procedure</span>

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure contains the rules governing criminal procedure in every court in Italy. The Italian legal order adopted four codes since the Italian Unification. After the first two codes, in 1865 and 1913, the Fascist Government established in 1930 a new code adopting an inquisitorial system. In 1988 the Italian Republic adopted a new code, that could be considered to be somewhere in between the inquisitorial system and the adversarial system.

Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial. They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. Game theory has been used to analyze the plea bargaining decision.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States constitutional criminal procedure</span> United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.

Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).

As one of the fifty states of the United States, California follows common law criminal procedure. The principal source of law for California criminal procedure is the California Penal Code, Part 2, "Of Criminal Procedure."

Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its decision, the Court ruled on when a criminal defendant who opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence also opens the door to evidence that would otherwise be excluded by the Confrontation Clause.

References

  1. ↑ "FRCRMP - Rule 7 (LII 2003 ed.)". www.law.cornell.edu. Archived from the original on 2003-05-05.
  2. ↑ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_69_5046 [ bare URL ]
  3. ↑ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_69_5035 [ bare URL ]
  4. ↑ https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_90 [ bare URL ]
  5. ↑ "US Sentencing Commission". Archived from the original on August 12, 2006. Retrieved August 9, 2006.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.