Understanding Constitutional Trials: A Step-By-Step Guide

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a public trial for criminal defendants charged with non-petty offenses. This right can be waived, but defendants usually cannot avoid publicity altogether. The trial process is largely the same in criminal and civil cases, with both sides presenting their cases and evidence, and the judge and jury deciding on the facts. The prosecution or plaintiff presents their case first, followed by the defense, and the defendant has a constitutional right to remain silent to prevent self-incrimination. The most common type of evidence is witness testimony, and the judge decides on the admissibility of evidence. The jury deliberates and must reach a unanimous decision to convict in federal criminal trials.

Explore related products

Judges on Trial: The Independence and Accountability of the English Judiciary (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law Book 8)

$59.99 $64

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis (Studies in Legal History)

$26.73 $35

The Family Law Trial Evidence Handbook: Rules and Procedures for Effective Advocacy

$98.99 $149.95

The Treason Trials of Aaron Burr (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$25.64 $29.99

Radical Deprivation on Trial: The Impact of Judicial Activism on Socioeconomic Rights in the Global South (Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy)

$116.95 $138

The right to a public trial

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides defendants in criminal cases with the right to a public trial. The right to a public trial is also supported by public policy reasons, including accountability, transparency, and fairness. The general public benefits from seeing how the criminal justice system performs, and judges and prosecutors may have a greater incentive to uphold their duties if they know that the public is watching.

However, the right to a public trial is not absolute. While the media has the right to cover criminal proceedings, this does not translate to unlimited access. Judges have the authority to exclude the media from sensitive portions of the trial and can sequester witnesses. Additionally, gag orders may be issued to prevent attorneys, parties, and witnesses from discussing the case outside the courtroom, although these are employed sparingly due to their impact on the public's right of access.

Courts must also consider the potential conflict between the rights of the defendant and the public's right to access. In cases where the defendant's right to a fair trial may be jeopardized by publicity, the defendant's rights typically prevail. Nevertheless, judges must explore alternatives to complete closure, as demonstrated in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, where the Court reversed the state's closure of a preliminary hearing in a murder trial.

Exceptions to the right to public trials include juvenile court proceedings, which are generally closed to limit future consequences for the juvenile defendant. Judges also have the discretion to close proceedings to the public if they determine that publicity would pose a serious risk of harm.

The role of the judge

In a trial, the judge is responsible for making legal rulings, including decisions on the admissibility of evidence and the relevance of testimony. For example, during witness examination, either attorney can object to a question or piece of evidence, and the judge decides the outcome of the objection. The judge may "sustain" the objection, stopping the action, or "overrule" it, allowing the action to continue. Judges also have the power to issue "gag orders" to prevent attorneys, parties, and witnesses from discussing the case outside the court to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.

In constitutional cases, judges play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the provisions of the constitution. They ensure that the rights guaranteed by the constitution, such as the right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment, are upheld. Judges also consider and rule on constitutional challenges, such as those related to the right to trial by jury, as provided by the Sixth Amendment and Article III of the Constitution.

Additionally, judges are responsible for ensuring the safety and privacy of those involved in the trial. In certain situations, a judge may close a courtroom or exclude the public from sensitive portions of the trial to protect the privacy or safety of witnesses, parties, or others. For example, a judge might agree to exclude the public from hearing the testimony of an undercover officer or a witness whose safety is at risk.

During the trial, the judge oversees the examination of witnesses, allowing both the prosecution and defence to question them. After the examination of each witness, the judge may allow the plaintiff to ask additional questions in response to issues raised during the cross-examination. The judge also ensures that the jury receives proper instructions and understands the applicable laws before they begin their deliberations.

Overall, the role of the judge in a trial is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice, protect the rights of all involved, and interpret and apply the law accurately. Judges play a crucial role in ensuring that trials, especially constitutional cases, are conducted according to legal procedures and that justice is served.

Witness examination

During the direct examination, the attorney calling the witness—either the prosecutor or the defence attorney—asks questions to elicit information and present it as evidence to the jury. This stage is crucial for setting the narrative and establishing facts that support their case. The prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney goes first, introducing evidence and witness testimony to support their arguments. A witness is someone with personal knowledge of the situation, and their testimony can significantly influence the jury's decision. The direct examination can range from a few minutes to several days, depending on the complexity of the case and the number of witnesses involved.

Following the direct examination, the opposing counsel has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The purpose of this stage is to challenge the credibility of the witness and identify inconsistencies or weaknesses in their testimony. The right to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial, as highlighted in the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the accused's right to confront witnesses against them. The defence attorney aims to cast doubt on the witness's statements and present alternative interpretations of the facts.

After the cross-examination, the attorney who called the witness has the chance to conduct a redirect examination. This stage aims to clarify any confusing aspects of the witness's testimony and reinforce their credibility. It allows the attorney to address any concerns raised during cross-examination and ensure the jury understands the witness's testimony in the context of their case.

It is important to note that the examination of witnesses is governed by specific rules and procedures. Attorneys must ensure that their questions are relevant to the case and within the scope of the witness's knowledge. Objections can be raised if these boundaries are overstepped, and the judge will decide the outcome of such objections. Additionally, the right to confront witnesses is not absolute and may be limited in certain circumstances, as determined by the trial court, to protect witnesses from harassment or to consider public policy and the necessities of the case.

In summary, witness examination in constitutional cases involves a back-and-forth process of direct examination, cross-examination, and redirect examination. It is a critical component of a trial, as it allows for the presentation of evidence, the scrutiny of testimony, and the assessment of witness credibility. The examination of witnesses plays a pivotal role in shaping the jury's understanding of the case and their eventual verdict.

Explore related products

The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury

$18.31

Court on Trial: A Data-Driven Account of the Supreme Court of India

$24.99 $24.99

Rights on Trial: How Workplace Discrimination Law Perpetuates Inequality

$32 $31.99

America's Trial: Torture and the 9/11 Case on Guantanamo Bay

$26.18 $32.99

The Supreme Court on Trial: How the American Justice System Sacrifices Innocent Defendants

$26.95

Capital Punishment on Trial: Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$24.99 $99.99

The right to silence

In criminal cases, the right to silence is derived from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 further solidified this right, requiring law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If a suspect invokes their right to silence, any subsequent interrogation must cease, and statements made without the presence of an attorney become inadmissible in court.

However, the right to silence is not absolute and may vary across jurisdictions. For example, in the UK, the complete silence of an accused individual can be used against them in court, depending on additional evidence, as upheld by the German constitutional court. Similarly, in the U.S., there have been cases where a defendant's silence was used as incriminating evidence without violating the Fifth Amendment or Miranda rights.

In some countries, such as Bangladesh, the right to silence is explicitly mentioned in their penal code, requiring magistrates to inform individuals of their right to silence during confessions. Additionally, the Constitution of India guarantees the right against self-incrimination, stating that no accused person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

It's important to note that the right to silence applies not only to the accused but also to witnesses. A witness can refuse to answer questions that could incriminate themselves or their relatives. This right extends to both criminal and civil cases, providing protection for individuals involved in legal proceedings.

Evidence and its collection

Evidence is an item or information that makes the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take many forms, including testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects.

In the US, federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, while state courts generally follow their own rules. For example, California, Indiana, and Washington each have their own evidence codes and rules. In federal court, evidence is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, which determine what evidence is admissible at trial. Similarly, in state courts, evidence must be admissible under that jurisdiction's rules of evidence.

There are two types of admissible evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is based on personal knowledge. When a witness testifies in court to something they saw, heard, or felt, that is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is everything else, including physical evidence, DNA, expert testimony, documentary evidence, and video recordings. It's important to note that all evidence except direct witness testimony is circumstantial, and it is a misconception that circumstantial evidence is less trustworthy.

Attorneys and prosecutors play a crucial role in evidence collection and presentation. Prosecutors assess the information collected by investigators to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings. They have extensive discretion in deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings, especially in ambiguous situations or when a statute includes a wider range of circumstances than intended. Attorneys, on the other hand, make inferences between pieces of admissible evidence to establish a chain of causation.

The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance to the case, its probative value, and whether it might confuse or mislead the jury or be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. Additionally, the chain of evidence is crucial. If there are breaks in the chain, the defendant can argue that the evidence is tainted and unreliable.

It's worth noting that illegally obtained evidence is also a factor in evidence collection. Most states have their own exclusionary remedies for such evidence, and the Fourth Amendment specifically addresses unlawful searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule states that evidence unlawfully obtained by a private person is admissible, but if the police use illegal actions to gain incriminating results, all evidence stemming from those actions ("fruit of the poisonous tree") can be excluded. However, there are exceptions, such as the "good faith" exception, where evidence may be admitted if the police attempted to uphold constitutional requirements but made an honest mistake.

Frequently asked questions