COURTS OF JUSTICE The word court originally meant the enclosed space in a courtyard where a king or other ruler

sat to settle disputes and to decide upon punishments for crimes. Today the word has several meanings. It may mean the room where a trial is held. It may also refer to the judge, several judges sitting in a group, or the judges and other officers of the court. There are many different types of courts and several ways to classify them. A basic distinction must be made between trial courts and courts of appeal. Courts can also be classified by the types of cases they handle either civil or criminal. In some countries there are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning that they may deal with cases of both kinds. There are specialized tribunals that deal with specific types of cases such as divorce or labor disputes. The armed services have their own legal system and courts. Criminal courts deal with individuals accused of crimes. The purpose of the trial, normally held before a jury, is to decide whether the accused is guilty or not and, if guilty, what the punishment should be. Prosecution in criminal trials is undertaken on behalf of the public by a public official who is usually a lawyer, such as a district attorney or states attorney. Civil courts are not involved with offences against government. They deal with private problems between individuals or corporations in dispute over such matters as the responsibility for an automobile accident or over the terms of a contract. Civil suits produce the most massive and rapidl y growing number of cases in the court systems. Some common examples of civil cases are suits for medical malpractice or damages from libel, and those filed by relatives of disaster victims. Civil suits are not prosecuted by the state as are criminal cases. In a civil suit each party engages a lawyer to present the evidence and to question the witnesses. The most common decision in such cases is an order to the defendant to pay money to the wronged party. There are occasions in which civil and criminal acts overlap. In a hit and run accident, for instance, if someone is killed and the driver is found to be at fault, he may also be sued for damages in a civil trial. In the US there are two separate trials for such cases. In France and some other nations both types of responsibility civil and criminal can be determined in a single proceeding. This means that the injured party is allowed to make a

civil claim during the criminal prosecution, agreeing to abide by its outcome. Courts of limited jurisdiction Every nation has tribunals that deal only with specific kinds of cases. Probate courts, for example, deal only with estates of people who have died. There are commercial courts for disputes between merchants, labor courts for controversies between employees and employers, juvenile courts, divorce courts, and traffic courts. Inferior courts In many jurisdictions there are what are called inferior courts. Often manned by part time judges, they handle minor civil and criminal cases. In addition, they may also deal with preliminary phases of serious criminal cases, such as setting bail, advising defendants of their rights, appointing defense counsel. Appellate courts All of the above mentioned courts are trial courts. Above them, to review their work, are the appellate, or appeals, courts. The responsibilities of appellate courts are normally general. Such courts handle cases in which the fairness of other courts decisions is questioned, or appealed. An appellate court is usually presided over by several judges instead of the single judge who presides over a trial court. After the verdict has been rendered in a trial, an appeal is not automatic. It must be sought by some party who feels wronged by the trial ruling. An exception to this practice is acquittal in a murder case. An individual who has been found not guilty of a murder may not be tried again, nor may the state appeal the acquittal to a higher court.

STEPS IN A TRIAL

The following is a short explanation of the steps in either a criminal or a civil trial. Step 1. Opening Statement by plaintiff or prosecutor

Plaintiffs attorney (in civil cases) or the prosecutor (in criminal cases) explains to the tries of fact the evidence to be presented as proof of the allegations (unproven statements) in the written papers filed with the court. Step 2. Opening statement by defense Defendants attorney explains evidence to be presented to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiff or prosecutor. Step 3. Direct examination by plaintiff or prosecutor Each witness for the plaintiff or prosecution is questioned. Other evidence (such as documents and physical evidence) in favor of the plaintiff or prosecution is presented. Step 4. Cross-examination by defense The defense has the opportunity to question each witness. Questioning is designed to break down the story or to discredit the witness in the eyes of the jury. Step 5. Motions If the prosecutions or plaintiffs basic case has not been established from the evidence introduced, the judge can end the case by granting a motion (oral request) made by the defendants attorney. Step 6. Direct examination by defense Each defense witness is questioned. Step 7. Cross-examination by plaintiff Each defense witness is cross-examined. Step 8. Closing statement by plaintiff Prosecutor or plaintiffs attorney reviews all the evidence presented (noting uncontradicted facts), and asks for a finding of guilty (in criminal cases) or a finding for the plaintiff (in civil cases). Step 9. Closing statement by defense Same as closing statement by prosecution/plaintiff. The defense asks for a finding of not guilty (in criminal cases) or for a finding for the defendant (in civil cases). Step 10. Rebuttal argument Prosecutor or plaintiff has the right to make additional closing arguments.

Step 11. Jury instructions Judge instructs jury as to the law that applies in the case. Step 12. Verdict In most states, a unanimous decision is required one way or the other. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, it is said to be a hung jury, and the case may be tried again.

DEFENSES
For a conviction to occur in a criminal case, the prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act in question with the required intent. The defendant is not required to present a defense but can instead simply force the government to prove its case. However, a number of possible defenses are available to defendants in criminal cases. NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED The defendant may present evidence to show either (1) that no crime was committed or (2) that there was no criminal intent. In the first case, a defendant might attempt to show that he was carrying a gun but had a valid license, or a defendant might attempt to show that he did not com mit rape because the woman was of legal age and consented. In the second case, the defendant might attempt to show that he mistakenly took another persons coat when leaving a restaurant. The defendant is innocent of a charge of larceny if it was an honest and reasonable mistake. DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME Often, no doubt exists that a crime has been committed. In such cases, the question is, who committed it? In this situation, the defendant may present evidence of a mistake in identity or may offer an alibi, which is the evidence that the defendant was somewhere else at the time the crime was committed.

DEFENDANT COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT, BUT THE ACT WAS EXCUSABLE OR JUSTIFIED Sometimes, a criminal act may be considered excusable or justified. Defenses in this category include self-defense and defense of property and others. The law recognizes the right of a person unlawfully attacked to use reasonable force in self-defense. It also recognizes the right of one person to use reasonable force to defend another person from an attack that is about to occur. There are, however, a number of limitations to these defenses. A person who reasonably believes there is imminent danger of bodily harm can use a reasonable amount of force in self-defense. However, a person cannot use more force than appears to be necessary. If, after stopping an attacker, the defender continues to use force, the roles reverse, and the defender can no longer claim self-defense. Deadly force can be used only by a person who reasonably believes that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. A person is allowed to use deadly or nondeadly force to defend a third person if the person defended is entitled to claim self-defense. Reasonable nondeadly force may be used to protect property. Some states have enacted controversial laws, which give persons the right to use deadly force to defend their property against unwarranted intrusion. DEFENDANT COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT BUT IS NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER ACTIONS Some defenses rest on the defendants lack of criminal responsibility for his or her criminal act. In this category are defenses of infancy, intoxication, insanity, entrapment, duress and necessity. Infancy Traditionally, children of a very young age, usually under 7, were considered legally incapable of committing a crime. Chi ldren between the ages of 7 and 14 were generally presumed incapable of committing a crime, but this presumption could be shown to be wrong. Under modern laws, most stated simply provide that children under a specified age shall not tried for their crimes but shall be turned over to the juvenile court. Children under the specified age have the defense of infancy.

Intoxication Defendants sometimes claim intoxication as a defense - that is, they claim that at the time of a crime, they were so drunk on alcoho l that they did not know what they were doing. As a general rule, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime. However, it may sometimes be a valid defense if the crime requires proof of a specific mental state. For example, when Grady is charged with assault with intent to kill, he claims he was drunk. If he can prove this, his intoxication may be a valid defense, because it may negate the specific mental state (the intent to kill) required to prove the crime. Grady can still be convicted of the crime of assault, because specific intent is not required to prove that crime. Insanity Over the centuries, the insanity defense has evolved as an important legal concept. Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that insane people were not responsible for their actions and should not be punished like ordinary criminals. Since the 14 th century, English courts have excused offenders who were mentally unable to control their conduct. The modern standard grew out of an 1843 case involving the attempted murder of a British prime minister. The basic idea is that people who have a mental disease or defect should not be convicted if they dont know what they are doing or if they dont know the difference between right and wrong. During the proceedings, the accuseds m ental state can be an issue in determining (1) whether the defendant is competent to stand trial, (2) whether the defendant was sane at the time of the criminal act, and (3) whether the defendant is sane after the trial. The insanity defense applies only if the accused was insane at the time of the crime. Insanity at the time of trial may delay the proceedings until the accused can understand what is taking place. But insanity during or after the trial does not affect criminal liability. In most states, the re are three possible verdicts: guilty, innocent, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The last verdict results in automatic commitment to a mental institution. In recent years, a number of states have come up with a new verdict: guilty but mentally ill. Defendants found guilty but mentally ill can be sent to a hospital and later transferred to a prison after they have recovered. Entrapment The entrapment defense applies when the defendant admits committing a criminal act but claims that he or she was induced, or persuaded, to commit the crime by a law enforcement officer. Entrapment is difficult to prove and cannot be claimed as a defense involving serious physical injury, such as rape or murder.

Duress A person acts under duress when he or she does something as a result of a threat of immediate danger to life or personal safety. Under duress, an individual lacks the ability to exercise free will. For example, suppose someone points a gun at your head and demands that you steal money or be killed. Duress would be a good defense in this case if you were prosecuted for theft. Duress is not a defense to homicide. Necessity An individual acts under necessity when he or she is compelled to react to a situation that is unavoidable in order to protect lif e. Suppose, for example, that a group of people is left adrift in a lifeboat and the lifeboat is so heavy with cargo that is in danger of sinking. The group throws the cargo overboard to make the lifeboat lighter. In this case, necessity would be a good defense to a charge of destruction of property. Necessity is not a defense to homicide.