The courtroom: a place of astonishing drama and high stakes, full of tension and nerves and stress. A place of entertainment and sensational trials, of chilling crimes and thrilling stories. At least that's how it is on TV.
In real life, less than 10% of cases go to trial. In the remaining 90% of cases, either the case is dismissed by prosecutors, defendants plead guilty, or lawyers plea-bargain the case away. Of the 10% of cases that do go to trial, less than half go before a jury; most are bench trials before a judge.
But because it's fun, here is how a case is presented before a jury. Enjoy!
The trial process in the United States typically can be divided into eight steps: jury selection, opening statements, presentation by the prosecution, presentation by the defense, presentation of rebuttals, closing arguments, instruction of the jury and the verdict.
Jury selection is the first step. Jurors are selected from a jury pool, which is often drawn from state voter registration forms and drivers license databases. Complaints that this system tends to stock the jury pool unfairly, because many non-white, poor and younger people are not found in these systems, have led many states to supplement the jury pool by using registrations at public utilities and other sources to better balance the jury pool. Lawyers will screen the jurors in the process of Voir Dire in an attempt to remove from the jury any jurors who the believe will make decisions contrary to the interest of fairness.
Opening statements are made when the charges against the accused are read. Attorneys for the defense and the prosecution can make brief statements about their positions in the opening statements, but they will not introduce any evidence during this phase of the trial.
After opening statements, the prosecution presents their case. Prosecutors must be able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged. To do this, they present evidence to the jury. Evidence can come in the form of “real evidence” such as a weapon or fingerprints, or “demonstrative evidence” such as diagrams of crime scenes or photographs. Testimony is a powerful form of evidence, which can be subdivided into “direct evidence,” or eyewitness accounts in which a witness states that they observed the crime in action; and “circumstantial evidence,” where the jury must make conclusions based on witness testimony. After showing their evidence, the prosecutor informs the court that the state will rest their case. Defense lawyers will often ask the court to bring a verdict of Not Guilty at this point based on the supposition that the prosecutions case is not strong enough.
The defense presents after the prosecution. Defense lawyers will typically use a variety of strategies to debunk the prosecutions case. Often they introduce evidence that contradicts the evidence of the prosecution. They can offer alibis for the defendant; for example, “This hotel receipt proves that Mr. Jones was three states away at the time of the crime, therefore he could not have done it.” The defense may ask the accused to testify, but this gives the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the accused. Since the accused has a fifth-amendment right not to testify, defense lawyers often do not make them do so, although some juries will regard this as suspicious. Other defenses such as entrapment, insanity or necessity can be argued by the defense as well. However, since the prosecutor holds the burden of proof, the defense can occasionally rest immediately after the prosecution presents, especially if the prosecutions case is weak.
After the defense presents their case, the prosecution can call rebuttal witnesses to discredit the evidence or witnesses of the defense.
Each side will then make a closing argument. Attorneys will summarize their cases and attempt to convince jurors to decide in their favor through a variety of tactics.
Before the jury can decide the case, the judge must instruct them on how to interpret the law. The judge will explain applicable rules and regulations, assist the jurors with questions about the law, and explain to the jury that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard which the case should be judged by.
Finally, the jury will decide the case. They will be sequestered away from the media and their friends and family, so that their decisions are not tainted by outside influences. If jurors are allowed to leave the area, they are ordered by the court not to discuss the case with anybody. Once the jury decides, the court gathers everyone together and the verdict is read, either by all members of the jury or by a jury foreman. If the jury is hung, then the prosecution must decide whether or not to re-try the case and go through the process again.










I really liked your post. I am studying history with a minor in polisci with plans to go onto law school. Even though I do not plan on being a defense attorney, I find the whole trial process fun and well exciting. Nice Post.
Thanks! My goal is to hack into law school eventually, too; I don't think I'd want to be a defense attorney or a prosecutor, but courtroom procedure is pretty interesting. Good luck to you!
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
Yes, yes, a jury trial is interesting.
But what about trials that are only heard by a judge? (Which, as you say, are the majority of tried cases.) Don't you care to enlighten us about those as well?
Or are we only focusing on the interesting and exciting aspect of law practice in this post? (If so that's all well and good... just curious.)
/jkh
I would love to discuss bench trials and the less exciting aspects of the courtroom and the system. As I mentioned previously in a response to another of your comments, though, this was originally an essay written for my criminal justice class, and discussing bench trials would have been off-topic and pushed me past the word-count limit for the paper.
As far as focusing on the interesting and exciting aspects of law practice, I suppose that I am, but I'm writing based on a prompt and can't really expand into the bread-and-butter, everyday operations of the legal system (based on that prompt.) As I learn more, I will write more about the less exciting aspects of the law.
Thanks for your input.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)