Chapter 10 - The Criminal Trial Process: Judges, Bench Trials, Jury Deliberation, and Sentencing

Abstract

The criminal court uses a variety of trials: the bench trial, the jury trial, and the juvenile court hearing. In a bench trial, the judge acts as judge and jury. Bench trials are used when a defendant does not want a jury. Most defendants request jury trials, with the idea that being judged by one’s peers will result in a better chance of an acquittal. The juvenile hearing is different from the criminal trial. The goal of the juvenile court hearing is not to adjudicate guilt or innocence, but rather to determine if the juvenile is in need of protection or intervention. The juvenile hearing is non-adversarial process and does not afford the child the same level of legal protections as the criminal trial. The judge acts as a disinterested evaluator of the prosecutor’s case to ensure that the prosecution has presented a compelling case and that the defense attorney has had the opportunity for rebuttal. Some of the important pretrial duties of the judge include: issuing warrants, ruling on motions, conducting hearings, appointing counsel, setting bail, and taking pleas. During the trial, the judge is the finder of fact, the finder of law, enforces procedural law, instructs the jury, rules with impartiality, adheres to precedent, maintains courtroom decorum, hands down sentences, and presides over the jury trial. Juries typically consist of 12 individuals plus alternates. Some states require 12 jurors for felonies and fewer for misdemeanors. Small juries comprise six jurors: it is believed they have more time to deliberate because of their size. Large juries make it more likely that racial and ethnic minorities, and women, are included. There is also a greater possibility of a hung jury. At the beginning of any court session, the master jury list is used to construct a jury pool called a venire. To ensure that the jury is as impartial as possible, voir dire is used to question the potential jurors about a wide range of issues that may influence their objectivity. Jury verdicts can take one of three major forms: guilty, not guilty, and guilty but insane. A guilty verdict means the jury determined that there was a proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense. A not-guilty verdict is an acquittal of the case against the defendant. It means the jury did not find proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, it could also mean that they think the defendant is guilty but did not believe that the prosecutor provided the legal justification for arriving at a guilty verdict.. In the guilty but insane verdict, the jury determines that the defendant has committed the offense, but that he or she does not have the mental competency to understand the ramifications of his or her behavior. The overriding philosophy of sentencing is “let the punishment fit the crime.” This attitude goes back to the ancient dictate of lex talionis, or “an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth. The four basic philosophies of sentencing are deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Deterrence is one of the bedrocks of the criminal justice system. Specific deterrence occurs when someone breaks the law, is punished for it, and desists from committing future offenses. General deterrence occurs when we see other people punished for their offenses, and we desist from violating the law. The idea behind retribution is that convicted offenders should get what they deserve. Incapacitation is concerned with protecting society from crime and is aimed at disabling an offender from committing more offenses. The idea behind rehabilitation is to address offenders’ social, educational, employment needs so they can become productive members of society. The idea of judicial discretion is contentious because it is an argument about the balance of values. On one hand, it is believed that judges should have broad discretion in deciding cases because of their knowledge of the particulars of each case. On the other hand, judges’ broad discretion can mean there is wide disparity in sentences given to offenders with similar backgrounds and offenses.