adversarial system
the two-sided structure under which American criminal trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defense
bailiff
the court officer whose duties are to keep order in the courtroom, to secure witnesses, and to maintain physical custody of the jury
change of venue
the transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another 2.the transfer of a case begun in one court to another court in the same district, usu. because of questions of fairness
circumstantial evidence
evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation
closing argument
a lawyer's final statement to the judge or jury before deliberation begins, in which the lawyer requests the judge or jury to consider the evidence and to apply the law in his or clients favor
courtroom work group
the professional courtroom actors, including judegs, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, public defenders, and others who earn a living serving the court
defense counsel
a licensed trial lawyer, hired or appointed to conduct the legal defense of a person accused of a crime and to represent him or her before a court of law
direct evidence
evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.(eyewitness testimony and videotaped documentation account for the majority of all direct evidence heard in the criminal courtroo
evidence
anthing useful to a judge or jury in deciding the facts of a case.(witness testimony, written documents, video-tapes, magentic media, photographs, physical objects, etc.)
exculpatory evidence
information having a tendency to clear a person of guilt or blame
expert witness
a person who has special knowledge and skills recognized by the court as relevant to the determination of guilt or innocence
hearsay
something that is not based on the personal knowledge of a witness
hearsay rule
the long-standing precedent that hearsay cannot be used in American courtrooms
judge
an elected or appointed public official who presides over a court of law and who is authorized to hear and sometimes to decide cases and to conduct trials
juror
a member of a trial or grand jury who has been selected for jury duty and is required to serve as an arbiter of the facts in a court of law
jury selection
the process whereby, according to law and precedent, members of a particular trial jury are choosen
lay witness
an eyewitness, character witness, or other person called to testify who is not considered an expert(must testify to facts only and may not draw conclusions or express opinions
opening statement
the initial statement of the prosecution or the defense, made in court of law to a judge, or to a judge and jury, describing the facts that he or she intends to present during trial to prove the case
peremptory challenge
the right to challenge a potential juror without disclosing the reason for the challenge
perjury
the intentional making of a false statement as part of the testimony by a sworn witness in a judicial proceeding on a matter relevant to the case at hand
probative value
the degree to which a particular item of evidence is useful in, and relevant to, proving something important in a trial
prosecutor
an attorney whoses official duty is to conduct criminal proceedings on behalf of the state or the people against those accused of having committed criminal offenses
prosecutorial discretion
a prosecutor's power to choose from the options available in a criminal case, such as filing charges, prosecuting,plea-bargaining,and recommending a sentence to the court
public defender
a lawyer or staff of lawyers, usually publicly appointed , whose duty is to represent indigent criminal defendants
real evidence
evidence that consists of physical material or traces of physical activity
rules of evidence
court rules that govern the admissibility of evidence at criminial hearings and trials
scientific jury selection
the use of correlational techniques from the social sciences to gauge the likelihood that potential jurors will vote for conviction or for acquittal
sequestered jury
a jury is isolated from the public during the course of a trial and throughout the deliberation process
Speedy Trial Act
A 1974 federal law requiring that proceedings against a defendant in a criminal case begin within a specified period of time, such as 70 working days after indictment
subpoena
a written order issued by a judicial officer or grand jury requiring an individual to appear in court and to give testimony or to bring material to be used as evidence
testimony
oral evidence offered by a sworn witness on the witness stand during a criminal trial
verdict
the decision of the jury in a jury trial or of a judicial officer in a nonjury trial
victim assistance program
an organized program that offers service to victims of crime in the areas of crisis intervention and follow-up counseling and that helps victims secure their rights under the law
Cases
...
Argersinger v. Hamlin
(1972) the court required adequate legal representation for anyone facing a potential sentence of imprisonment
Burns v. Reed
(1991) the court held that "[a] state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from liability for damages...for participating in probable cause hearing, but not giving legal advice to the police
Coy v. Iowa
(1988) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a courtroom screen, used to shield child witnesses from visual confrontation with a defendant in a child sex abuse case, had violated the confrontation clause of the Constitution(found in the 6th Amendment)
Crosby v. U.S.
(1993) the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant may not be tried in absentia, even if he or she was present as the beginning of a trial, if his or her absence is due to escape or failure to appear
Demarest v. Manspeaker et al.
(1991) the U.S. Supreme court held that federal prisoners subpoenaed to testify are entitled to witness fees just as nonincarcerated witnesses would be
Dogett v. U.S.
(1992) the Court held that a delay of eight and a half years violated speedy trial provisions because of it resulted from government negligence
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc.
(1991) a civil case with significance for the criminal justice system, the court held that peremptory challenges in civil suits were not acceptable if bases on raced: " the importance of[Edmonson] lies in the courts significant expansion of the scope of s
Fex v. Michigan
(1993) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "common sense compel[s] the conclusion that the 180-day period does not commence until the prisoner's disposition request has actually been delivered to the court and prosecutor of the jurisdiction that lodged the
Georgia v. McCollum
(19992) the court barred defendants and their attorneys from using peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors on the basis of race
Gideon v. Wainwright
the U.S. Supreme Court extended the right to legal counsel to indigent defendants charged with a criminal offense
Idaho v. Wright
(1990) the court reasoned that such "statements [are] fraught with the dangers of unreliability which the Confrontation Clause is designed to highlight and obviate
Imbler v. Pachtman
(1976) provided the basis for such thinking with its ruling that "state prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability...for their conduct in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case
Maryland v. Craig
(1990) the court upheld the use of closed-circuit television to shield children who testify in criminal cases
Mu'Min v. Virginia
(1991) addressed that involves the possibility that jurors couls be influenced by pretrial new stories
Powers v. Ohio
(1991) the court found the favor of a white defendant who claimed that his constitutional rights has been violated by the intentional exclusion of blacks from his jury through the use of peremptory challenges in civil suits were not acceptable if based on
White v. Illinios
(1992) the Court seemed to reverse its stance, ruling that in-court testimony provided by a medical provider and the child's baby-sitter,which repeated what the child had said to them that out-of -court statements should be admissible only when the witnes
Zafiro v. U.S.
(1993) the justices held that, at least in federal courts, defendants charged with similar or related offenses may be tried together, even when their defenses differ substantially