Encyclopedia trial

Reporters assembled from as far away as London and Hong Kong. Mencken chronicled the trial for the Baltimore Sun. Years later, the U. Supreme Court struck down a similar Arkansas law in Epperson v. Arkansas , finding that it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This article was originally published in James C. Larson, Edward J. Cambridge, Mass. Moran, Jeffrey P. Scopes Monkey Trial [electronic resource].

Other articles in Events. Want to support the Free Speech Center? Donate Now. Settling on jury instructions. The prosecution and defense get together with the judge and determine a final set of instructions that the judge will give the jury. Prosecution closing argument.

The prosecution makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as the prosecution sees it and explaining why the jury should render a guilty verdict. Defense closing argument. The defense's counterpart to the prosecutor's closing argument. The lawyer explains why the jury should render a "not guilty" verdict—or at least a guilty verdict on only a lesser charge.

The prosecution has the last word, if it chooses to take it, and again argues that the jury has credible evidence that supports a finding of guilty.

Jury instructions. The judge instructs the jury about what law to apply to the case and how to carry out its duties. Some judges "preinstruct" juries, reciting instructions before closing argument or even at the outset of trial. Jury deliberations. The jury deliberates and tries to reach a verdict. Juries must be unanimous. If less than the requisite number of jurors agrees on a verdict, the jury is "hung" and the case may be retried.

Post-trial motions. If the jury produces a guilty verdict, the defense often makes post-trial motions requesting the judge to override the jury and either grant a new trial or acquit the defendant.

Again, see Acquittals by Judges in Jury Trials. Also see Motions for New Trial. Denial of post-trial motions.

Almost always, the judge denies the defense post-trial motions. Assuming a conviction a verdict of "guilty" , the judge either sentences the defendant on the spot or sets sentencing for another day. Berman Nolo. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site.

The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service.

Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Talk to a Lawyer. Grow Your Legal Practice. Meet the Editors. Criminal Trial Procedures: An Overview. Most criminal trials follow a uniform set of procedures. In England the trial is usually in open court, and it is rare to try cases in camera, or to attempt to exclude the public from the hearing.

The essential part of the trial is that there should be full opportunity to both sides for evidence and argument on the questions in dispute. At present in England, as distinguished from the rest of Europe, the evidence is ordinarily taken viva voce in court, and affidavits and depositions are sparingly accepted, whereas under the XXVII. The modes of trial have altered with legal development in English as in Roman law see Action.

Many forms of trial, notably those by ordeal, by wager of battle or of law see Ordeal and Wager , and by grand assize, have become obsolete, and new forms have been created by legislation in order to meet altered circumstances of society. Up to a very recent date the tendency of the Roman and English systems was in opposite directions. In the former and in systems founded on it, such as the Scottish and French, trial by the judge became the rule, in the latter trial by judge and jury.

In England the method of trial of issues of fact arising under the common law was by jury and a bench of judges. In truth the trials were the sittings of commissioners sent to inquire and report with the aid of the neighbourhood on questions of crime and civil wrongs in a county; the practice is summed up in the old phrase ad quaestionem juris judices respondeant, ad quaestionem facti juratores.

In courts which administered equity or derived their law or procedure from the civil or canon law no jury was used, and the judges determined both law and fact. The system of trial before a full bench of judges even with a jury is now used on the European continent, but has been superseded in England by trial before a single judge with a jury except in the rare cases of trial at bar.

This latter mode of trial is a survival of the mode universal in the superior courts before the writ of nisi Arius, and is now only used in the king's bench division, when claimed by the Crown as of right or in cases of unusual importance and difficulty. Recent instances are the trial in of Arthur Lynch for treason in South Africa, and in of questions raised on a petition of right in respect of a claim to make the Crown responsible on the conquest of the Transvaal for acts of the Transvaal government before or during the war.

The necessity for trial by jury has been removed in many cases by legislation and rules of court see Jury; Summary Jurisdiction , and the present English practice is summarized in the following statement.