Stages of a Criminal Trial, Research Paper Example

Abstract

In the complex and challenging phases of a criminal trial, jury selection is one of the most pivotal and foundational elements. A long history of safeguards, one continually evolving, is set in place to ensure that this essential component within the criminal justice system be as fairly administered as possible. Despite delays, costs, and inconveniences, the sanctity of the impartial jury is at the core of the American trial process and must always be preserved.

Purpose and Process

Selecting a jury is one of the initial stages in a criminal trial. Obviously, it must be done before the actual trial can in fact commence. The purpose is basic, in that the U.S. Constitution ensures each citizen a fair trial and a verdict rendered by a jury of the defendant’s fellow citizens. This is ancient justice carrying on, as the fate of the defendant is left, not to lofty judicial authorities, but to a representation of the society upon which the impact of the crime is felt.

Great care is taken in jury selection, not only because the assembly must conform as much as possible to the rendering of an unbiased and competent verdict from the defendant’s peers, but because a mistake made can have disastrous repercussions.  A single juror deemed unacceptable after the trial has begun can lead to a miscarriage of justice solely through the judge’s decision of a mistrial; as it may be argued that the defendant has lost his opportunity for a fair hearing under the circumstances, the case may be set back for an indefinite period, or even dismissed. Then, the pressing factors of a crowded court schedule and the costs to taxpayers of restructuring a new trial are no small considerations.

To forestall these possibilities, criminal trial jury selection has several essential phases. After a pool of applicants is brought in, counsel from either side has the opportunity to question each prospective jury member to their own satisfaction. This is the voir dire stage, which is loosely translated as “speak the truth”. With very few restrictions, both defense and prosecuting attorneys put forth any number of questions to determine if the potential juror is truly capable of reaching a decision based on evidence alone, and one untainted by personal bias of any kind.

In the U.S., all jurisdictions permit peremptory challenges for both attorneys, usually two in number. This grants the counsel the right to dismiss a potential juror for no specific reason, although certain limits must be observed. Lawyers frequently employ this to better secure a gender or racial composition of the jury they feel will benefit their case. The attorneys have as well the right to challenge a juror’s standing by reason of cause, in which case a clear factor, one unacceptable for a fair outcome, must be presented. As follows, all of this can be a highly subjective and problematic issue, and one with evolving consequences.

Case of Jury Selection Controversy

In the 1987 Missouri trial of Jimmy Elem, charged with robbery, the prosecutor issued his peremptory jury challenges on two African Americans. The defense objected; the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled a year earlier, in Batson v. Kentucky, that exclusion based upon race was an exception to the right of the peremptory challenge. That is, the judge had the right to question such a challenge. In this instance the prosecutor claimed that it was the long hair of the jurors which made him see them as unacceptable, and “suspicious”, and not their race.

The defense took issue with this reasoning, citing it as flimsy and clearly a masking of the real, racially-motivated, objection. Consequently this case of jury selection was laid at the doorstep of the Supreme Court who, in a shocking decision, decreed that “…Prosecutors can put forth silly, superstitious and implausible reasons as long as the trial judge accepts the exclusion as being based on something other than race or gender” (Cole, Smith, 2006, p.372). In other words, provided the attorney could convincingly offer any alternate and random reason at all, jurors could be easily excluded for more serious and unconstitutional reasons of race and gender.

Conclusion

Flaws notwithstanding and laws changing constantly in regard to the processes, jury selection is a crucial cornerstone within the criminal trial system. Nothing, with the possible exception of incontrovertible evidence, has more impact on a trial’s verdict, and the greatest care must always be given to this stage of the trial which, in effect, the entire trial hinges upon. Despite delays, costs, and inconveniences, the sanctity of the impartial jury is at the core of the American trial process and must always be preserved.

References

Cole, G.F., and Smith, C.E. (2006.)  The American System of Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.