Courts system structure and function

Criminal Justice System

The judiciary of the United States is created as a co-equal branch of government under the United States Constitution, along with the executive and legislative branches. It is the judiciary that oversees the country's criminal justice system of courts.

The court system in the United States is a holdover from its colonial days and closely follows system laid out by English Common Law. This has given rise to the adversarial court system today, where two sides -- the plaintiff and defendant -- argue their cases in front of an impartial judge and a jury of their peers (Neubauer 2001).

Most criminal cases are jury trials. A jury is charged with determining the facts of the case, as argued by prosecutors who represent the state and the lawyers representing the defendant. The presiding determines and interprets the law in relation to the case (Rabe 2001).

Beginning of a trial

Depending on the state laws, a district attorney or a specially convened grand jury will decide if there a case has enough merit. The first formal step of a criminal proceeding, the plaintiff filed a case in front of a district or trial court (Rabe 2001).

Both the defense and prosecuting lawyers are then given time to make "discovery requests," based on the rules in their jurisdictions. This allows both sides of the criminal case to gather facts and evidence that will be used for the case. In one of the final steps before a trial starts, the prosecutors and defense lawyers both select the members of a jury (Rabe 2001). The selection process allows both sides opportunity to ask potential jurors questions that would be asked during trial. Both sides can also weed out jurors and have the opportunity to, ideally, convene an impartial jury.

Proceedings during trial

The trial is the heart of the American criminal justice process. This provides both sides a chance to present their arguments and their interpretations of the facts and allegations regarding the criminal case.

In most cases, the prosecutors, who represent the people, are allowed to go first. The parties both present an opening statement, where they present the jury with an overview of their different cases (Neubaeur 2001). Each side is then allowed a chance to present their arguments regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence.

The prosecutor is usually allowed a chance to present its case first. The prosecuting lawyer presents proof regarding a defendant's guilt. This includes physical evidence related to the case. The prosecutor could also present financial records, videos taken from the scene, audio recordings and photographic evidence. Often, prosecutors also interview witnesses, such as the victim or people who were present during the commission of the crime and expert witnesses who interpret the evidence for the jury.

After each witness testifies, the defense lawyer is then given an opportunity to ask questions. During this cross-examination, the lawyer tries to either disqualify the witnesses' credibility or to re-interpret the evidence.

The goal of this cross-examination is to sow "reasonable doubt" in the jury's mind regarding the evidence (Champion 2000).

Once the prosecutor is finished presenting his or her evidence, the defense then has a chance to mount its case. The proceedings are then reverse, as the defense presents its own evidence and questions its own witnesses.

The prosecutor then has its chance to cross-examine the defense witnesses.

Throughout these proceedings, the judge presides to ensure that the law is followed. Both attorneys can object to a line of questioning, to a witnesses entire testimony or to the presentation of evidence (Rabe 2001). It is the judge's task to determine which objections have merit, and what evidence a jury must disregard.

When both sides are finished presenting their cases, they are given a chance to present their "closing arguments" to the jury. The judge then gives a jury its instructions, explaining the laws that cover the case and providing the questions that the jury is supposed to evaluate. The judge also remains available as the jury deliberates the facts of the case, to answer any questions pertaining to law. The final point in a criminal trial comes when the jury reaches its verdict regarding a defendant's guilt or innocence (Champion 2000).

After the trial

Though the formal trial proceedings end with the verdict, the defense or prosecution could still pursue other courses of action if they disagree with the verdict or with any part of the proceedings. Both parties may appeal the decision to ab Appellate Court, by filing the necessary petition detailing the legal arguments why the verdict is wrong. Based on the strength of these arguments, the appellate court can decide to remand the case. This forces the trial court to issue a new ruling, based on the appellate court's opinion. The appellate court could also decide if the evidence warrants an additional hearing or even a new trial (Champion 2000).