Blog
Philadelphia Federal Criminal Trial Process From Jury Selection to Verdict
Contents
Philadelphia Federal Criminal Trial Process From Jury Selection to Verdict
The federal criminal trial process in Philadelphia begins with jury selection and ends with the jury’s verdict. This process has many steps along the way that are important to understand.
Jury Selection
Jury selection, also known as voir dire, is the first part of a federal criminal trial in Philadelphia. It’s when the prosecutors and defense attorneys get to question potential jurors to see if they might be biased. The goal is to seat 12 objective jurors plus a few alternates.
First, the court sends out jury summons to people living in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia. The people summoned fill out a questionnaire about their background. Then they come to the courthouse where the judge and lawyers question them.
The lawyers want to challenge biased jurors for cause. They also get a certain number of peremptory challenges where they can dismiss jurors without a reason. After the challenges, the first 12 jurors left make up the jury.
Voir dire can take a few days or weeks depending on the case’s complexity and public interest. The lawyers spend a lot of time preparing voir dire strategies beforehand.
Opening Statements
After the jury is selected, each side gives an opening statement. The government goes first, followed by the defense. Opening statements preview each side’s key evidence and arguments.
The prosecutor’s opening statement explains the charges and how the evidence will prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense opening often argues weaknesses in the government’s case or presents an affirmative defense.
Opening statements are not evidence themselves. They set the stage for the witness testimony and exhibits to come.
Government’s Case-in-Chief
After openings, the government presents its case-in-chief first. This involves calling witnesses and introducing exhibits to prove the elements of the charged crimes.
For example, in a federal drug trafficking prosecution, the case-in-chief may include testimony from an undercover agent, informants, and forensic chemists. There would be exhibits like recorded conversations, surveillance video, and drugs seized.
On direct exam, the prosecutor asks questions to get the witnesses to tell their story. The defense can cross-examine the witnesses after direct. Leading questions are allowed on cross since the goal is to poke holes in the witness’s credibility.
The Federal Rules of Evidence govern what evidence is admissible. Hearsay and irrelevant evidence is prohibited. But exceptions allow certain hearsay like present sense impressions and business records.
After the government rests its case, the defense can move for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29. If granted, the case is dismissed without reaching a verdict. But judges rarely grant these motions.
Defense Case
After the prosecution rests, the defense has the option to put on its own case. But the Fifth Amendment means defendants never have to testify or put on evidence. The defense can rely solely on poking holes in the government’s case.
If they choose to mount a defense, witnesses may include alibi witnesses, character witnesses, and expert witnesses. The defense may also introduce exhibits like financial records. The prosecutor gets to cross-examine the defense witnesses.
Common federal defenses include diminished capacity, duress, entrapment, and insanity. The defense has the burden of proving affirmative defenses like insanity.
Rebuttal and Surrebuttal
After the defense finishes, the government can introduce rebuttal evidence. This aims to counter defense evidence and shore up the government’s case. Then the defense can offer surrebuttal responding to the government’s rebuttal evidence.
For example, if the defense calls an alibi witness, the government might call a rebuttal witness to undermine the alibi claim. The defense could then surrebut with more alibi witness testimony.
Rebuttal and surrebuttal are not common. Usually the main cases are sufficient without getting into back-and-forth counter-evidence.
Closing Arguments
After all evidence is presented, the attorneys make closing arguments. The prosecution goes first, then defense, and finally prosecution rebuttal. Closings summarize the key evidence and argue how it fills (or doesn’t fill) the legal elements.
Good closing arguments tie all the evidence together into a persuasive story. Logical reasoning, emotion, and rhetorical flourishes may be used. The lawyers argue their view of the case hoping to convince the jury.
Judges instruct jurors that closings are not evidence. But skilled advocates can still sway the jury’s interpretation of the evidence during closings.
Jury Instructions
After closings, the judge instructs the jury on the law they must apply. Standard jury instructions are used based on the charges. Instructions cover topics like:
- Presumption of innocence
- Reasonable doubt standard
- Elements of the charged crimes
- Types of evidence
- Credibility of witnesses
- Rules for deliberations
Jury instructions are crucial for jurors to understand how to analyze the evidence and reach a verdict based on the law. Lawyers often submit proposed instructions pushing for language favorable to their side.
Jury Deliberations
After receiving the instructions, the jury retires to the deliberation room. The first step is typically choosing a foreperson to lead the process. The jury then weighs the evidence to reach a unanimous verdict on each count.
Jurors discuss the evidence amongst themselves aiming to reach consensus. They must base their verdict solely on the trial evidence and law as instructed. Outside information is prohibited.
If they have questions during deliberations, jurors can send notes to the judge. The lawyers return to court to discuss the response. The judge can bring the jury back to clarify a point of law but cannot comment on the evidence.
Deliberations can range from hours to weeks depending on the length of the trial and complexity of issues. The jurors keep deliberating until they reach unanimous verdicts or become deadlocked.
Verdict
Once the jury reaches unanimous verdicts on all counts, they notify the judge. The parties return to the courtroom where the judge or courtroom deputy reads the verdicts aloud.
In Philadelphia federal court, not guilty verdicts are read first on each count. If found not guilty on all counts, the defendant is free to go. If found guilty on any count, further proceedings get scheduled.
If the jury deadlocks and cannot reach unanimity, the judge may give an Allen charge encouraging further deliberations. If still deadlocked, the judge declares a mistrial and the case may be retried before a new jury.
Federal criminal trials in Philadelphia follow many detailed procedures from start to finish. Understanding the process provides insight into how judgment is passed in these important cases.
References
Challenge for Cause. Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell Law School.
Peremptory Challenge. Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell Law School.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal. Cornell Law School.
Diminished Capacity. Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell Law School.
Duress. Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell Law School.
Entrapment. Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell Law School.
Insanity Defense. Wex Legal Dictionary. Cornell Law School.