He or she is responsible for ensuring the court proceedings are legal, and that the defendant receives his or her rights to due process of law. The judge does this by setting the rules of the courtroom and acting as a referee between opposing council. Although a judges’ most visible role is during a criminal or civil trial, he or she has many responsibilities. Prior to any court hearing, the judge is responsible for signing search and arrest warrants. Judges also deal with the issue of bail once established that there is enough evidence to hold a criminal trial against the defendant during the preliminary hearing.
This paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today. The Courts and its Purpose The United States court system is a branch of the government that resolves legal disagreements through a legal, judicial manner. The courts use a process called the “Adversary Process” that helps to reach a decision in each case that is presented. In this method, the lawyers in the case present their side of the argument to a judge or jury. Each side presents their case.
If bail has not previously been set, it is often set at the same time as the arraignment. Bail (or "bond") is often granted in a standard amount, depending upon the crime charged. In civil trials, one person or party has reached the conclusion that their outstanding disagreement or dispute with another individual or entity can no longer be resolved through informal damage plea bargaining without the intervention of the judicial system and a civil trial. To initiate the process of a civil trial, individuals are required to file a complaint within the court of appropriate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by assessing whether the court receiving the complaint has power over a defendant and whether the property involved in a dispute is within the given jurisdiction.
The fact that the prosecutor works in the interests of the state can be seen as the underlying factor here. The prosecutor can get away with misconduct; because if it were proven that the prosecutor was actually responsible for misconduct it would greatly undermine the goal of the state, which is to seek justice. If the prosecutor is misconducting themselves then it gives the impression that the prosecutor is not interested in justice, but more so a conviction, whether it be done so legally and ethically, or not. Prosecutorial misconduct happens, and
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
A convenient way to conceive of philosophical arguments is to envision the arrangement of a Criminal or Civil Court. Who are the participants in the typical court situation? Of course there is always a judge with special training and authority to over see the rules for administering justice between the parties to the dispute. Who else? Well there is the prosecutor representing the jurisdiction whether City, State or Federal (or claimant who has filed a claim against a litigant who has done something for which the claimant seeks retribution) and the defendant who under some circumstances may act in his or her own defense but in all likelihood a licensed, practicing attorney who acts on behalf of his client(s).
Unless the government is able to prove the existence of these elements, it can't obtain a conviction in a court of law. The due process model is a model of the criminal justice system that stresses that every criminal justice conclusion is built on scrupulous information. Due process stresses the adversarial process, the rights of defendant and the rights of the formal decision-making procedure. It is vital to realize that courts allow individuals to defend themselves based on entrapment, self-defense or insanity. These, however, must be proved appropriately to allow courts practice fairness in defenses.
At this time if the defendant chooses to have a counsel present, the counsel has to be present them from the beginning of the defendant’s court proceedings, through the end of the initial appearance through the appeal, unless the defendant chooses to waive there rights. This is governed by federal and local courts because in some cases there appears to be multiple arrests, and because of this Joint Representation is possible. This allows defendants to be represented by the same attorney’s. Sometimes the court orders separate cases tried to bring in a single indictment. Afterwards the arraignment is opened in court to make sure the defendant has a copy of their indictment, after the indictment is read and the defendant is asked to give a plea whether guilty or not guilty.
Strengths and weaknesses of the courts as law makers The courts have a number of strengths and weaknesses in their ability to make laws A strength of the courts is that they have the ability to give meaning to legislation. Courts are able to apply relevant law to the cases brought before. This application of the law sometimes requires courts to interpret the wording in the Act and give them meaning. An example of a case where courts were required to give meaning to the words of an Act was the studded belt case (1996). In this case a man had his studded belt taken off him and seized as a weapon under the Controlled Weapons Act.
This tells us that civil law is for individual interest while criminal law is for public interest. It is not only the name that differs from the two categories of civil law and criminal law, the way of reaching a clear cut judgment is also relevant. In presenting evidence to indicate the defendant to be guilty has to be “clear and convincing evidence” and in criminal cases the substantial amount of evidence according to the same source has to be “Beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to prove the defendant to be guilty. Civil cases brought to court under this category are usually associated with personal disputes that can be sorted out with payments. Cases that are usually brought to court for civil law related matters are like copyright infringements, debt, evictions, partnership and inheritance disputes (under £30,00 dealt with at county court, any amount over £50,000 is sent straight to High Court) and other common complaints.