When Cases Go to Trial in Massachusetts
- Uncategorized
- Comments Off on When Cases Go to Trial in Massachusetts
Not every case goes to trial, but what happens when one does?
This question is rightfully on the mind of every defendant, and should be in the forefront of their defense attorney’s mind. From the start, a good attorney approaches each case as if a trial will occur. By doing so, the attorney can begin to formulate a strategy from the moment they are retained that will have a high likelihood of success in the event that a trial takes place. Failing to formulate such a strategy at the beginning of the case can be extremely costly for the client since certain evidence, witnesses, and motions must be pursued in the early stages of a case, and cannot be left until later. Missing critical opportunities to conduct these tasks at the beginning of the case is a sign that the attorney never really planned on, or was never actually intending on, taking the case to trial.
Assuming that you have hired the right attorney for your needs, which requires an in-depth look at the potential attorney’s qualifications and individual characteristics, you may find yourself in a situation with a case that requires a full jury or jury waived trial. The reality is that not every criminal case will go to trial, but the ones that do often have disputed facts that will turn on the testimony of critical witnesses, or the presentation of evidence. A seasoned criminal defense attorney will know exactly what order and what style of presentation is required to most effectively maximize the chances of success at trial. If, after thoughtful consideration, you have decided with your attorney that a trial is in your best interest, you are probably wondering what to expect. Most people have never seen an actual trial, and only have as a reference point that which they have seen on television.
Jury trial vs jury waived trial
The first thing to understand is that it is always a defendant’s right to choose whether they will be tried by a jury of their peers, or a judge alone. The difference is that the jury is only required to make decisions regarding the facts, whereas a jury waved trial in front of a judge requires a judge to decide both the facts and the law. Depending on the particular characteristics of your case, sometimes it is more beneficial to waive a jury, and other times waiving a jury trial would be a huge tactical error. An experienced attorney can help with this important decision. Once you have selected which type of trial you will have, the next steps may commence. In a jury trial, the selection of the jury is a very important, yet not very scientific step. Many attorneys rely on old prejudices, preconceptions and thinking about how they will select their jury, while better informed and more cutting edge attorneys look for data and information available to them about the prospective jurors to make strategic decisions as to what type of jury would be the best to hear this specific case. While no one can truly know what lies in the heart of a particular man or woman, a lawyer must use their skills to do the best possible job in selecting a jury that will hopefully provide a fair and impartial audience to the facts. Alternately, if the trial is only being heard by a judge and no jury, then the lawyer must have a keen sense of that judge’s predispositions and prior precedents in order to understand how to present the evidence in a way that will be well received.
Once the Jury has been selected
After jury selection is complete, the two types of trials take a similar track. In all trials both sides are entitled to make an opening statement. The opening statement should provide a road map for the fact-finder, whether it be a judge or a jury, to understand what evidence is expected, and how that evidence is relevant to the ultimate decision of guilt or innocence. After opening statements, the Commonwealth, also known as the prosecutor, or sometimes referred to as the government, is required to present evidence first because it is their burden to prove a defendant Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. This burden never shifts, and the defense is never required to present any evidence if it does not desire to do so. The fact finder must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that is to a moral certainty, of guilt before such a verdict can be returned.
Importance of evidence
Evidence may take the form of witness testimony, physical evidence, photographs, scientific tests, audio or video recordings, and other types of evidence that are specific to various cases. That evidence is presented by the Commonwealth, and then the defense has an opportunity to cross-examine and poke holes in the strength of that evidence. Cross-examination is the bread-and-butter of an experienced criminal defense attorney, and the key element in making it possible to secure a not guilty verdict. It is during cross-examination that a defense attorney really shows their level of expertise, by knowing exactly what questions to ask and what areas to leave alone so as not to disturb favorable evidence. After all of the Commonwealth’s witnesses and evidence have been presented, the defense is given the opportunity to present evidence or witnesses as it sees fit. This can include all of the different types of evidence mentioned above, and in some cases the testimony of the defendant.
Should defendants testify?
While most people know that a defendant is never required to testify, too many backward-thinking criminal defense attorneys assume that defendants should never testify. This thought process is short-sighted, and does not reflect a well thought out strategy in some cases. There are instances when the testimony of a defendant is not only necessary, but it is the best possible way to secure a not guilty verdict. However, before any defendant would ever consider testifying, they must be well prepared (by their attorney) to face both friendly direct examination by their own attorney, as well as a challenging cross-examination from the prosecutor. The choice of whether to testify or not is always in the hands of a defendant, but this decision should always be made with the sound and hopefully well-considered opinion of their attorney.
Closing arguments and jury instructions
After the defense has presented all of its evidence, both sides are permitted to make a closing argument. The purpose of a closing argument is to present the evidence as it was obtained at trial in the light most favorable to that side’s position on the case. Simply regurgitating the evidence in the order it was presented is generally a disfavored strategy. Instead, a qualified and battle-tested defense attorney will marshal the evidence in such a way to tell a compelling story about the case, which leads the jury to an inevitable conclusion that a not guilty verdict is the only appropriate one in the case. A closing argument can be more forceful than an opening statement, since at that time the attorneys know what evidence was actually presented, as opposed to the evidence they expected to present. If the prosecution promises certain evidence that is not presented, an effective strategy can be to highlight those broken promises to the jury and get them thinking about what else the Commonwealth may have talked about that wasn’t true.
What happens next?
After the closing arguments, the judge will deliver jury instructions so that the jury understands the way in which the facts they find must be applied to the law. If the trial is in front of a judge without a jury, then the judge does not need to read these instructions out loud as they have them available for reference when they are making their decision. One of the most stressful and agonizing times for defendants and defense attorneys alike is the time spent waiting for the jury verdict. There is no set time allotted for jury deliberations, so some verdicts can be returned within as short a time as a few minutes, and others could take days. The length of deliberations is generally somewhat proportional to the amount of evidence presented in the amount of days of trial. However, in some cases, even a long trial could come back with a quick verdict. Once a verdict has been returned by a jury the judge will review the verdict to make sure that it has been delivered within the boundaries presented, and then the verdict will be read into the record by the clerk of court. This process is very formal and very nerve-wracking, with every defendant only hoping to hear the sweet words Not Guilty. If the trial is only before a judge then the judge will generally deliver their verdict at the close of all of the evidence, but it is possible that a judge may reserve a decision in order to review evidence and think about the case.
After the verdict is announced
If a defense attorney is successful in securing a not guilty verdict, the defendant is officially discharged from the court, and no longer has any punishment or sanction related to that criminal case. However if there is a guilty verdict, even on just one of the charges, then the case proceeds to sentencing, at which time the judge -not the jury- will determine the fate of the defendant. Sentencing can include options such as probation, suspended jail sentence, or actual incarcerated time. Every defendant should know what the maximum possible sentences are in their case, and what the likely possible sentences are before signing on to place their fate in the hands of a judge or jury.
Hopefully this overview gives you a better sense of what to expect at a criminal trial, and if you feel that you need further advice, or that your lawyer has not given you an appropriate understanding of what could happen in your case, please feel free to call Rakhlin Law at 617-564-0466 for a free and confidential evaluation of your case.