Classification of Criminal Offenses. Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Cases. Criminal Appeals. Motions for a New Trial in Criminal Cases. Competency to Stand Trial for Criminal Defendants. Continuances in Criminal Cases. Judgments of Acquittal in Criminal Trials. Joint Trials for Criminal Defendants. Immigration Removal Proceedings and Criminal Law. Miranda Rights for Criminal Suspects.
Right to Record Police Officers. Arrests and Arrest Warrants. Constitutional Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Discovery in Criminal Cases. Hearsay in Criminal Cases.
Stages of a Criminal Case. Stages of a Criminal Trial. Limits on Searches and Seizures in Criminal Investigations. Alcohol Crimes. Parole and Probation. Expungement and Sealing of Criminal Records. Offenses Included in Other Crimes. Both lawyers are allowed to ask questions about their potential biases and may excuse jurors from service. Opening statements allow the prosecutor and the defense attorney to briefly tell their account of the events.
These statements usually are short like an outline and do not involve witnesses or evidence. The prosecutor makes an opening statement first because the Government has the burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime.
Witness Examination Following opening statements, the prosecutor begins direct examination of his first witness. During direct examination, the prosecutor can introduce evidence such as a weapon or something from the crime scene. The purpose of cross examination is to create doubt as to the credibility of the witness. After the defense attorney cross examines the witness, the prosecutor asks the witness final questions to clarify any confusing testimony for the jury.
This is called redirect examination. Once the process of direct examination, cross examination, and redirect of all the witnesses is complete, the prosecutor rests his case. After the prosecutor rests, no more witnesses can be called to the stand or evidence introduced by the government. After the Government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence to the jury.
The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that they are innocent. It is the government's responsibility to prove the defendant committed the crime as detailed in the indictment. The fact that a defendant did not testify may not be considered by the jury as proof that the defendant committed the crime. The defense may also waive his case. If the defense does not put on any evidence, the jury cannot assume that the defendant is guilty simply because they did not put on a defense.
For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the impact such a retrial would have upon that court's ability to comply with speedy trial limits in other cases, such a result is most undesirable. That being the case, it is certainly understandable that the trial judge in Meinster as in Barone elected to substitute an alternate juror at that point. Given the rule 23 b bar on a verdict of less than 12 absent stipulation, United States v.
Taylor , supra, such substitution seemed the least objectionable course of action. But in terms of what change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is to be preferred in order to facilitate response to such situations in the future, the judgment of the Advisory Committee is that it is far better to permit the deliberations to continue with a jury of 11 than to make a substitution at that point.
In rejecting the substitution-of-juror alternative, the Committee's judgment is in accord with that of most commentators and many courts. There have been proposals that the rule should be amended to permit an alternate to be substituted if a regular juror becomes unable to perform his duties after the case has been submitted to the jury.
An early draft of the original Criminal Rules had contained such a provision, but it was withdrawn when the Supreme Court itself indicated to the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules doubts as to the desirability and constitutionality of such a procedure. These doubts are as forceful now as they were a quarter century ago. To permit substitution of an alternate after deliberations have begun would require either that the alternate participate though he has missed part of the jury discussion, or that he sit in with the jury in every case on the chance he might be needed.
Either course is subject to practical difficulty and to strong constitutional objection. See also Moore, Federal Practice par. Lamb , F. Ryan , 19 N. Compare People v. Collins , 17 Cal. State , Ind. The central difficulty with substitution, whether viewed only as a practical problem or a question of constitutional dimensions procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment or jury trial under the Sixth Amendment , is that there does not appear to be any way to nullify the impact of what has occurred without the participation of the new juror.
Virginia Erection Corp. The amendment provides that if a juror is excused after the jury has retired to consider its verdict, it is within the discretion of the court whether to declare a mistrial or to permit deliberations to continue with 11 jurors. If the trial has been brief and not much would be lost by retrial, the court might well conclude that the unusual step of allowing a jury verdict by less than 12 jurors absent stipulation should not be taken.
On the other hand, if the trial has been protracted the court is much more likely to opt for continuing with the remaining 11 jurors. The language of Rule 23 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. No change in substance is intended. Please help us improve our site!
No thank you. Jury or Nonjury Trial. Rule If the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless: 1 the defendant waives a jury trial in writing; 2 the government consents; and 3 the court approves. At any time before the verdict, the parties may, with the court's approval, stipulate in writing that: A the jury may consist of fewer than 12 persons; or B a jury of fewer than 12 persons may return a verdict if the court finds it necessary to excuse a juror for good cause after the trial begins.
Notes As amended Feb. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules— Amendment The amendment to subdivision b makes it clear that the parties, with the approval of the court, may enter into an agreement to have the case decided by less than twelve jurors if one or more jurors are unable or disqualified to continue.
In the opinion the court said: This situation might have raised the interesting and apparently undecided question of when a request for findings under Fed.
0コメント