Criminal Court System in U.S.

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Court Process Stages
Description
Members of the Courtroom Workgroup
Appeal: Description
Appellation: Legal Standards
References

Court Process Stages

Developing an understanding of how a criminal case is considered in court allows pinpointing the key strengths and weaknesses of the process. As a result, one gains an in-depth insight into the subject matter and becomes capable of improving it to reduce the threat of a mistrial, The stages of a court process may vary depending on the type of a trial that is taking place. In criminal trials, the process starts with the arrest and possible bail. Afterward, the arraignment stage is launched, after which the preliminary hearing and pre-trial ensue. Finally, the trial takes place and ends with sentencing. The accused is eligible for an appeal, which may take place after the sentencing (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2016).

Description

Arrest: apprehending a suspect;
Bail (optional): paying for the temporary release of the accused under the custody;
Arraignment: the accused pleading either guilty or innocent;
Preliminary hearing: presentation of the key evidence;
Pre-trial motions: assessment of the existing evidence;
Trial: the case is tried in court;
Sentencing: the sentence is passed;
Appellation: the accused asks for the reconsideration of the sentence

During the arrest, a suspect is apprehended, yet they may be bailed before the case is represented to the trial. During the arraignment, a defendant can choose to plead either guilty or innocent. In the course of the preliminary hearing, key arguments on both sides are presented. The pre-trial motions imply analyzing the available evidence and choosing the one that will be presented in court. During the trial, the arguments of the prosecution and defense are considered. Afterward, the court defines the punishment that the criminal should receive. In case the accused disagrees with the sentence, they may appeal for the revision of the case (Neubauer & Fradella, 2015).

Members of the Courtroom Workgroup

By definition, the courtroom workgroup is a process that involves communication and the ultimate agreement between the key participants of a court trial, namely, the defense, the prosecution, and the judicial officer (Nolah, 2017). As a result, the premises for the trial to become more objective and fair are built. In the process of their communication, the members are not merely presenting their case and arguing their side of the problem, but also attempting at locating the solution that will satisfy all parties involved.

Members’ Roles and Responsibilities

Prosecution: arguing against the case;
Defense: asking for the review of the sentence;
Judicial officer: negotiating and managing;
Common purpose: prosecutorial discretion;
Significance: support for the defense due to the lack of resources.

While all of the participants strive to reach the common goal, each of them performs a particular function. The prosecutor focuses on the evidence against the defendant, pointing to the problematic aspects of the case. The attorney addresses possible inconsistencies in the evidence or on the lack thereof. The judicial officer, in turn, manages the dialogue and contributes to the resolution of the case. Therefore, each of the participants plays a crucial role in reaching an agreement concerning the case. The significance of the courtroom workgroup is huge since it allows addressing the lack of resources for an attorney to use.

Appeal: Description

The concept of the appeal suggests that, in case of locating an error or a misjudgment that occurred during the trial the high court has to review the case in order to ensure that the trial was fair. After the appeal, the official decision made previously by the court can be reversed in order to restore justice.

The process of appealing starts with the introduction of a case to appellate courts. In the specified institution, a case is reviewed and retried. However, the institution in which a case is reviewed may vary depending on the type of a case or local legal practices. For instance, one may appeal for the reconsideration of a case to the Supreme Court, although the range of scenarios in which the specified attempt will be granted a permission are limited (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2018).

Appellation: Legal Standards

The process involving a review of an appeal demands the participants to comply with a set of rigid guidelines and standards. For instance, it is critical for the case to be reviewed based on the principles of an arbitrary and capricious analysis. Particularly, all participants need to remain objective throughout the process. In addition, the accused has to provide substantial evidence to support their claims and make a case in court. There is also the need to meet the de novo standards, which dictate that a defendant should be given the minimum deference possible. Moreover, extra steps are taken to reduce the probability of the procedural error. The latter falls into two categories, which are the abuse of discretion and a plain error. The former suggests that the jury should not base their decision on the lower court’s ruling, while the latter implies the permission for the accused to raise an objection concerning the conduct during a trial (Cole et al., 2018).

References

Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2018). The American system of criminal justice. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2015). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2016). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Nolah, J. L. (2017). Drug courts: In theory and in practice. New York, NY: Transaction Publishers.

Click Here To Order Now!