THE CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCESS

1
THE CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCESS
2
Criminal Trial Principles

• These principles are intended to guarantee
  fairness and strike a balance between the power
  of the state and the civil liberties of the
  accused.
• Rule of Law
• Individuals can only be punished for breaches of
  the law, and that all citizens are equal before
  the law. Additionally, the law must be easily
  discoverable by citizens.
• Specific Allegation
• The right to know what you have been charged with
  and what specific circumstances are alleged to
  make up the offence.

3
Criminal Trial Principles Contd.

• Case to Meet
• The Crown must have a strong enough case for
  conviction. The Crown
• Presents evidence first
• Bears the burden of proof
• Must prove its case without relying on the
  accused to testify because they have the absolute
  right to remain silent.
• Presumption of Innocence
• The Crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable
  doubt before it is appropriate to punish. If
  there is any doubt, the accused is entitled to an
  acquittal.
• Open and Public Trial
• All criminal trials are open to the public and
  media.
• Independent and Impartial Adjudication
• Judge and jury must be impartial and have no
  personal interest in the outcome of the case.
  Decision must be based on the facts and the law.

4
Criminal Trial - Arraignment

• The Criminal Trial is an adversarial process that
  pits the Crown against the accused.
• Each person charged with an offence, under Sect.
  11 of the Charter, is presumed innocent until
  proven guilty according to law.
• This places the burden of proof (whomever has the
  obligation to prove the guilt of the accused) on
  the Crown.
• Proof of guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The first step in the trial is the ARRAIGNMENT
  the reading of the charge to the accused, and the
  accused entering either a plea of guilty or not
  guilty.
• The Judge then explains the role of the jury, and
  then the selection of a foreperson who will
  represent the jury and communicate with the judge
  takes place.

5
The Crowns Opening Statement

• The Crown presents first because it has the
  burden of proof.
• The trial always begins with the Crowns opening
  statement, which
• Identifies the offence committed
• Summarizes the evidence against the accused and
• Outlines the way the Crown will present its case.
• The opening statement is not evidence the Crown
  will introduce evidence only when the opening
  statement is complete.

6
Examination of Witnesses

• Most of the evidence presented in a criminal
  trial is presented through witnesses.
• The first examination of a witness is called a
  DIRECT EXAMINATION.
• The purpose is to determine what the witness
  observed about the crime
• After the direct examination, the defence counsel
  may cross-examine the witness to test the
  accuracy of the evidence or to convince the jury
  that there are contradictions in the witnesss
  testimony that weaken the Crowns case.

7
The Defence Responds

• When the Crown has finished with its witnesses,
  the Defence may bring a MOTION FOR DISMISSAL a
  request that the judge dismiss the charges
  against the defendant because the Crown has
  failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• If the judge agrees, he/she can enter a DIRECTED
  VERDICT - to withdraw the case and enter a
  verdict of not guilty.

8
The Defence Responds Contd.

• If the trial proceeds, the defence begins by
  summarizing its case in an opening statement
• It is during the opening statement of the defence
  where the defence of the accused is also stated.
• The defence can also call witnesses to refute
  testimony provided by the Crowns witnesses, or
  show reasonable doubt.
• The procedure of direct examination (by the
  defence) and cross-examination (by the Crown) is
  repeated.
• The defendant does not have to testify.
• After the defence had presented all its evidence,
  the Crown has the opportunity to rebut, or
  contradict, any new evidence the defence has
  introduced
• The defence can then present further evidence for
  a surrebuttal a contradiction of the Crowns
  rebuttal.

9
The Rules of Evidence

• During the trial, either the Crown or the defence
  may object to questions asked by the opposing
  attorney or to answer questions provided by
  witnesses.
• When an objection is made, the judge has to make
  a decision as to whether or not the evidence in
  question is admissible, or accepted by the
  court.

10
Types of Objections in a Criminal Trial

• LEADING QUESTION
• A question that suggest the witness to provide a
  particular answer during a direct examination
  (usually a yes or no).
• For example Wasnt it Jag you saw holding a
  knife and stabbing Dalton? is a leading
  question. This would prompt a yes or no
  answer, and would need to be reworded to What
  did you see Jag do to Dalton?
• Leading questions are not allowed in direct
  examination, but ok in cross-examination.

11

• HEARSAY STATEMENTS
• Witnesses can only be asked about what they saw
  or experienced first-hand, not about what they
  heard from a third party.
• For example Jon told me he saw Jag stab Dalton
  would be hearsay, and is not admissible.
• OPINION STATEMENTS
• Witnesses cannot be asked to give an opinion
  about matters that go beyond common knowledge
  unless the witness is a recognized expert in the
  field.
• For example, only a car mechanic could give an
  opinion about the condition of a cars brakes.

12

• IMMATERIAL OR IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS
• These questions have no connection with the
  matter at hand and are therefore inadmissible
• For example, in a murder trial, if the defence
  counsel asked the investigating officer a
  question about his personal life, the question
  may be dismissed as irrelevant if it has no
  bearing on the case.
• NON-RESPONSIVE ANSWERS
• When a witness provides a response that does not
  really answer the question.
• When this happens, the judge might instruct the
  witness to answer the question properly.

13
3 Types of Evidence

• There are many different types of evidence that
  can be introduce to a case, however all evidence
  must be material important and relevant to
  the case in question.
• Types of evidence include
• Direct evidence evidence that directly links
  the accused to a crime, such as a witness
• Physical evidence i.e. samples of bodily
  fluids, such as blood, semen, hair, fibre
  samples, fingerprints, or weapons found at the
  scene
• Circumstantial evidence evidence that
  indirectly links the accused to the crime, i.e.
  something belonging to the accused may have been
  left at the crime scene but there is no direct
  evidence to prove that the accused actually
  committed the crime

14
Types of Evidence - Examples

• 1. Self-incriminating
• Evidence that would directly or indirectly help
  to prove the guilt of the person giving the
  evidence in a different proceeding
• Evidence that a witness has provided in one court
  cannot be used against him/her in another
  criminal court case, unless they have perjured
  themselves.
• 2. Privileged communication
• Confidential communications that cannot be
  required to be presented in court as evidence
  AGAINST the accused i.e. between a husband and
  wife, doctor and patient, lawyer and client.
• If the person giving the confidential information
  agrees, then the information can be presented
• If the person in the position of power in the
  relationship, such as the doctor in a
  doctor-patient relationship, provides the
  evidence, then the privilege is nullified, and
  can be used in court.

15
Types of Evidence Examples Contd.

• 3. Similar fact
• Evidence that shows the accused has committed
  similar offences in the past
• To be used, it must be relevant to the case
• Helps to discredit the accused's past, and can be
  extremely damaging to the accused's case.
• 4. Hearsay
• Something that someone other than the witness has
  said or written, i.e. Sam said she heard Kristin
  say that she killed Jabari.
• Is usually inadmissible, however may be
  admissible if it's being used as proof that
  statement was actually made, or if the witness is
  quoting a person was dying, as long as the
  evidence would have been admitted if the person
  had lived.

16
Types of Evidence Examples Contd.

• 5. Opinion
• Evidence provided by an expert witness regarding
  specific facts in a case
• Is inadmissible unless the witness is an EXPERT
  i.e. Only a car mechanic can give an opinion
  about the condition of a cars breaks.
• 6. Character
• Evidence used to establish the likelihood that
  the defendant is the type of person who either
  would or would not commit a certain offence.
• The Crown cannot introduce evidence of a persons
  bad character UNLESS the defence introduces
  evidence of a persons GOOD character first.

17
Types of Evidence Examples Contd.

• 7. Electronic surveillance
• The use of any electronic device to overhear or
  record communications between two or more people,
  such as wiretapping , bugging, and video
  surveillance
• Any evidence obtained by wiretapping, bugging and
  video surveillance of a person or his/her
  property requires a search warrant and a judges
  authorization
• Video surveillance evidence is admissible without
  a warrant if its of a public place
• A warrant is also not necessary if the police
  officer believes and can prove that the situation
  is an emergency or necessary to prevent a violent
  act.
• 8. Polygraph
• Are considered hearsay and inadmissible as
  evidence, however anything the defendant says
  during the course of the test may be introduced
  as evidence.

18
Types of Evidence Examples Contd.

• 9. Photographs
• may be entered if they can be identified as an
  accurate portrait of the crime scene
• Often the photographer and film processor take
  the stand to describe how the photographs were
  taken and processed.
• 10. Confessions
• An accused persons acknowledgement that the
  charge, or some part of the charge, is true.
• A confession can be INCULPATORY an admission,
  or EXCULPATORY a denial.
• If the confession is not voluntary, it can be
  rejected.

19
Voir Dire

• When a question about the admissibility of
  evidence arises in court, a voir dire is held. A
  voir dire is a trial within a trial to determine
  whether or not the evidence is admissible. If
  there is a jury present, the jury is removed if
  the evidence is considered admissible, they are
  given the opportunity to consider it. If
  inadmissible, the jury will not be told of the
  evidence.
• Any evidence that has been illegally obtain is
  also inadmissible

20
Summary of the Case (Summations)

• After all testimony and evidence has been
  presented, both sides present a summary of the
  case in the form of closing arguments
• If the defence called witnesses during the trial,
  then they close first. If not, the Crown closes
  first.
• The Crown has to show that guilt has been proven
  beyond a reasonable doubt
• The defence will try to show that the Crown has
  failed to establish actus reus and mens rea, so
  reasonable doubt exists.
• Intended to help the jurors understand the issues
  involved in the case better.

21
Charge to the Jury

• After the summations are presented by both sides,
  the judge will charge the jury explain the law
  and how it applies to the case before them.
• The judge will also advise on how to consider the
  evidence and how to return a verdict in
  accordance with the law.
• After the charge has been given, the sheriff
  takes the jury to the jury room where they can
  deliberate their verdict.

22
Judge vs. Jury

• Judges role is to decide on matters of law the
  jurys role is to decide on matters of fact.
• The judge rules on what evidence is admissible
  the jury decides what evidence is believable
• If there is any doubt, or if the jury doesnt
  know who to believe, they must acquit (provide a
  verdict of not guilty)

23
The Verdict

• Once the jury has decided on their verdict, it is
  read in open court.
• The Crown and defence can ask to poll the jury,
  and each jury member must then stand and state
  whether they agree or disagree with the verdict.
• A jurys verdict must be unanimous.
• A jury that cannot make a unanimous decision is a
  HUNG JURY a new jury will then be selected and
  the trial will occur again.