The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to establish whether there is sufficient evidence against a person to continue the justice process. There are three outcomes you can get from a preliminary hearing: the charges can be dismissed or dropped, a bail or detention hearing can be held, or a guilty plea can be found. There are many challenges that face the defendants, prosecutors, and the entire court when it comes to the preliminary hearing. Most prosecutors would rather go before a grand jury rather than hold a preliminary hearing. Going before a grand jury is favorable to the prosecutor because the jury only hears what the prosecutor has to say and will then deliberate whether the case should go to trial or not.
Many juries also don’t fully understand the legal system, which can be seen as a good thing because the accused is being judged by his peers, but it could also lead the jury to make an incorrect decision on whether the suspect is guilty or not guilty. Jurors can’t ask the witness any questions either, so they have to make a decision even if they
This means that they basically have absolute power of what happens in the case such as whether or not to pursue charges, what sentence the state wants, deciding how severe the charges are, and whether or not to plea bargain ("Prosecutorial Discretion", 2001-2013). This discretion can make the trial process take several months in some cases it slows down the flow of the cases in the court system because of the time that it takes for the prosecutor to decide these things. The prosecutor has the job to decide these things and then has to still do the trial this may also drag the cases out because the prosecutor might get a little worn out. The defense counsels job is to defend the people that the prosecutor is trying to send to jail and try to keep them from going to jail or avoid paying the monetary damages sought in a lawsuit. The defense counsel also protects these people from the power of the state (Klein, 2013).
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
Jury Nullification Paper Katrice Brown CJA/334 Cultural Diversity in Criminal Justice 28 July 2014 Professor S. Jury Nullification Paper “Jury nullification occurs in a trial when the jury determines verdict based on personal belief, even though the member of the jury believes the defendant to be guilty of the charges” ("Jury Nullification," 2014). Jury nullification can be very inequitable to parties involved in many court cases. It is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge’s instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. When the race of the defendant has any cause on the outcome of the juries’ decision to drop charges regardless of the amount of evidence, raced-based jury nullification becomes the case. Race-Based Jury Nullification Race-based jury nullification has been in the criminal justice system for many years.
Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong. In the United State’s Court Systems, the conventional method is for jurors as “evaluator of fact” and judges as the interpreter of the law and the instructor of the jury with regards to the application of the law. In an instance wherein the jury replaces its personal interpretation of the law and ignores the law fully to come up with a verdict, this results to jury nullification. In the courts, the commonly established perception of jury nullification is when a juror acknowledges power but has no right to nullify the law. Jury nullification is frequently practiced, but rarely occurs, in criminal trials and theoretically applicable to civil trials too – where it is focus to civil procedural solutions.
The judge, a disinterested party, ensures that the two sides play by the rules. The adversarial process can sometimes seem to result in defense attorneys and prosecutors advocating for one side at the expense of the truth, the process requires lawyers to strike the most advantageous deal they can for their clients, even if they realize that other
Brittney Pope Kyle Evans Intro to Criminal Justice 29 November 2012 All about Juries Have you ever wondered what the purpose of a jury is and where it all started at? Well the idea of jurors started back in England as early as the year 1066. These jurors started off as neighborhood witnesses who passed judgment only on the basis of their morals. According to Justice Byron White, “a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over conditioned or biased response of a judge. Juries were started to establish some justification for the people as stated in the constitution,”
In most cases there are a few who choose to represent themselves. In the constitution it states that an individual accused of a crime has the right to a counsel, but does not sate if a counsel will be provided. Individuals with money to hire an attorney would be represented by one. The rights to a counsel has been through many changes during the 20th century, it was no longer a restriction for those that were unable to afford an attorney or adults, the rights to a counsel was restricted to criminal trials, but now this is no longer an issue. When does the right to counsel attach.
Child molesters would be set free because of this as well. Which just seems very unfair. If you think about everything that has happened in the media you would see that most big cases are always on the news and though not every case should be publicized it should however be open to opinions of the public. Can you imagine how it would feel to have an input on how someone would be punished? Kind of like a poll, but still having to go through the jury process.