The Criminal Justice Process

In the United States, the criminal justice process occurs in several stages. Each of these stages contains a number of complex contingencies and procedures. Some of these procedures are so complicated that they are beyond the understanding of most laymen. Lawyers are interpreters of the law employed not only for criminal cases but also civil matters, such as lawsuits. There are two sides to every trial, the defense and the prosecution. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is indeed guilty of the crime for which they are being tried is the job of the prosecution. Defense takes on the greater burden of refuting the evidence provided by the prosecution, usually through the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and discrediting the prosecution’s evidence by way of expert counter-testimony.

To ensure that all individuals receive a fair trial, they are protected by the many amendments of the Bill of Rights, which allows for due process. All the stages of the criminal justice process represent due process in some way, shape, or form. But even though these amendments do provide safeguards, they may not be enough.

The criminal justice process must always begin with a crime. Whether it is a violent offense (murder, rape, assault) or a non-violent offense (embezzlement), all citizens are meant to be answerable to and represented equally under the law.

INVESTIGATION

In order for a suspect to be arrested for a crime, law enforcement officials must first establish probable cause. By investigating crimes, authorities are able to identify potential suspects, and in order to detain those suspects, they must first establish reasonable justification for doing so. With probable cause established, investigators can obtain search warrants, which allow them not only access to residences, but access to financial records, computer files, vehicles, and any other personal property that might pertain to the case.

Individuals are protected from illegal searches of their property by the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, which is why investigators are required to obtain a warrant. Authorities are granted some leeway with warrants, but not much. If an investigator determines that someone within a private residence may be in peril, there may be probable cause to enter. In such cases, any evidence in plain sight may be admissible, but in plain sight can be loosely interpreted. For instance, if a couch has to be moved in order to recover a handgun, the handgun cannot be said to have been in plain sight; it was, in fact, behind the couch, somewhere investigators cannot look without a warrant.

Any evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure may be determined inadmissible, but such determinations are made at a later stage of the criminal justice process. After an arrest warrant, the suspect is located and brought in for booking. At the time of arrest, suspects are read their Miranda rights, a collection of mandates protecting individual rights during arrest proceedings.

ARREST

Once booked, suspects are often interrogated. Under the authority of the Miranda rights, suspects retain the right not to speak to the police and are usually advised that a lawyer be present before making any statements. Coercion by authorities may represent a violation of the rights of the suspect, but there is some grey area where this is concerned.

While suspects may choose not to speak to investigators, investigators retain the right to question suspects, as long as that questioning is not done in such a manner as to physically threaten or physically harm the suspect. The goal of authorities in these situations is to obtain a written confession, but one is not always forthcoming. Without a confession, authorities may look to obtain further evidence against the individual.

The bond hearing or bail review is conducted to determine the amount of the defendant’s bail. In the trial process, bail is a monetary amount that when paid results in the temporary release of the accused. This does not, however, alleviate their obligation to the court. Defendants are still required to appear in court even after posting bail.

Bonding, a privatized component of the bail process, requires the accused to pay a percentage of the bail to a bondsman who will, in turn, post the remainder of the bail. The bondsman is then responsible for making sure the individual appears in court. Otherwise, bounty hunters or skip tracers are often dispatched to deliver individuals to the appropriate jurisdictional authority. Bail is the decision of the court and is based on two key factors, the nature of the crime and previous failures to appear at scheduled court dates.

At this stage of the criminal justice process, defendants are protected by the Eighth Amendment prohibiting excessive bail. However, in certain violent crimes, the accused may be held without bail. Also, judges often deny bail in cases where the accused represents a potential flight risk. Certain individuals may be released on their own recognizance; the promise to honor all scheduled court appearances. The next stage of the criminal justice process is indictment.

INDICTMENT

According to the Fifth Amendment, an indictment, an official accusation of a crime, can only be determined by a grand jury, an impartial panel of jurors. Prosecutors usually present their case before the grand jury to determine whether there is enough evidence to go to trial. Prosecutors must either prove probable cause, reasonable suspicion and/or establish a prima facie case.

Prima facie evidence, evidence that either presumes or establishes a fact, is part of the burden of proof for a prosecutor. An indictment would usually present the time and place the crime was committed, the nature of the crime committed, and the cursory evidence linking the defendant to that crime, which would all be elements of a Prima facie case.

This indictment process protects individuals from illegal prosecution by the state through the appointment of an impartial jury whose judgments determine whether or not an individual was involved in the crime he/she is being accused of committing.

In lieu of a grand jury, many felony cases undergo a preliminary hearing. At this stage, a judge hears the cases of both the prosecution and the defense to determine whether or not a crime was actually committed and whether or not there is reasonable evidence that the accused committed the crime in question. The process is quite similar to the indictment process. If the preliminary hearing determines that there is too little evidence against the accused, the case is usually dismissed. The preliminary hearing is also a good way to determine whether or not certain evidence is admissible. If the defendant loses at this stage, then the case will go to trial. Between the preliminary hearing and the trial, defendants are often presented with plea bargains, offers by the prosecution for the defendant to plead a certain way in exchange for a lesser sentence. If the plea bargain is rejected, the case moves onto the arraignment stage.

TRIAL & SENTENCING

In between the preliminary hearing/indictment process and the arraignment process, the case is randomly assigned to a trial court. Once the venue is determined, the defendant appears before the court to receive formal charges, a process known as arraignment. As soon as the charges are handed down, the defendant is asked to enter their plea: guilty, not guilty, or no contest. There is also something called an Alford plea, which is similar to no contest. No contest pleas are essentially guilty pleas, but with one minor difference, the defendant never actually admits guilt. Once a plea has been entered, the case moves to trial.

In regards to evidence used in a trial, attorneys engage in a process known as discovery, in which the prosecuting attorney reveals the evidence against the defendant. Discovery helps the defense attorney construct a stronger case. If the state withholds evidence, “especially evidence proving the innocence of the defendant”, then the prosecution is subject to strong disciplinary action, including fines, disbarment, and in some cases, criminal charges. The defense is similarly obligated to disclose all evidence to the prosecution.

Motions are an important part of the criminal justice process. During this process, attorneys make official requests to the court, known as motions. The right motions can even result in the dropping of charges against the defendant. At this point, the judge and the attorneys will also meet to determine the penalty should the trial result in a guilty plea. Plea bargains can be offered as long as charges have been filed. Once discovery is settled, motions made, penalties determined, and pleas offered, then the trial proceeds.

According to Bergman and Berman, it is the decision of the defense whether to proceed with a jury trial. The jury selection process is a give and take procedure in which both sides select jurors that would potentially support their cases, and eliminate those that would not. When the trial officially begins, both the prosecution and the defense are asked to present their case-in-chief. First, the prosecution presents its case, at which time the prosecution interviews its witnesses. These interviews are referred to as examinations and examinations are the backbone of criminal trials.

Once the prosecution is through examining their witnesses, the defense attorney is allowed to cross-examine witnesses; the process of refuting prosecution testimony. After cross-examination, the prosecution is offered an optional period of rebuttal, known as redirect, in which they reaffirm the testimony of the witnesses. When all prosecution examinations are complete, the prosecution rests. Afterward, the defense is given the chance to present their case using the same process as the prosecution. This time, the prosecution is given the chance to cross-exam defense witnesses, and the defense is also given an opportunity for redirect. Once examinations are complete, the defense rests. Before closing arguments can proceed, the prosecution is offered a formal rebuttal, used to refute the defense’s case.

Finally, both sides give their closing arguments; first, the prosecution, and then the defense. Once the defense has ceased with their closing arguments, the prosecution is allowed a chance to rebut, usually to assure the jury that there is enough evidence to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

After being given instructions from the judge, the jury goes into deliberations. If a jury returns with a not guilty verdict, the trial is over, but if they come back with a guilty verdict, the criminal justice process proceeds to sentencing. Sentencing is either handed down during the trial or at a later date.

APPEALS

For those found guilty, the process does not end at sentencing. The guilty are given a chance to appeal the verdict. To appeal a verdict means to have a higher court review the testimony and exhibits of the case and/or to be presented with arguments challenging the case. Appeals courts will either render a new verdict or let the initial verdict stand.

All the steps involved in the criminal justice process are designed to keep the legal system as fair as possible, but this does not mean the legal system is without flaws. These flaws were brought to startling light by DNA testing. Now the gold standard for criminal convictions, DNA testing only came into common practice within the last thirty years.

FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM

Before DNA evidence, police and prosecutors relied heavily on eyewitness testimony and other physical evidence, none of which was as accurate as DNA evidence. The margin for error prior to DNA matching was quite large. For example, in the case of Kirk Bloodsworth, it was DNA testing that finally exonerated him for the 1984 rape and murder of nine-year-old Dawn Hamilton, a crime for which he served nine years, two on death row.

Wrongful imprisonment occurs at such an alarming rate that a number of organizations are dedicated to fighting wrongful imprisonment. One such organization is The Innocence Project. According to The Innocence Project website, one of the primary reasons for wrongful imprisonment is inadequate representation. Whether it is lack of experience, willful indifference, or some other factor, defendants often receive poor legal representation. There is no guarantee someone who is a credentialed attorney is a competent litigator. Because many criminals cannot afford a highly trained defense attorney, they must settle for a public defender. To say, however, that all public defenders are ineffective is a fallacy, but some are inexperienced as trial attorneys. Having an ineffective defense attorney makes the prosecution’s case much simpler to prove.

In addition to wrongful convictions, plea bargaining is often considered a flaw in the criminal justice process. While the cost reduction benefit of plea bargaining is abundant, actual justice may suffer in the process. According to Stephanos Bibas, “[sentence] discounts exert pressure on defendants to plead guilty.” Plea bargaining is a failure of the justice system not only because it offers the guilty a reduction from the recommended sentence, but because it disregards an integral aspect of American law, the presumption of innocence. In the case of Coffin v. United States, the presumption of innocence was said to be “axiomatic and elementary.” The Sixth Amendment grants people the right to be tried before a jury of their peers. If plea bargaining becomes the standard for the American legal system, then it would transfer the power of law from the judges and the juries to the prosecutors.

The flaw in the criminal justice system is not the system itself. Humans make mistakes and humans are a key component of the criminal justice system. Sometimes the human flaw is inadvertent, other times the flaw is corruption. It has been said that we live in one of the most litigious nations in the world, and while this may be the case, our system of justice is fair if used in the correct way. As with all government agencies or functions of the government, the legal system can be reformed. With loaded court dockets, underpaid public defenders, and disinterested civilian participants, it is no surprise that the system has become unbalanced and corrupt.