Skip to content
Quick Guides

Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights

Preview 5 of 15 pages

See the first 5 pages exactly as they appear in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    Study Guide Criminal Jus Ɵ ce – Defendants' Rights 1. The Pos Ʃ rial Process Once a jury finds a defendant guilty , the trial is not completely over. Several important steps follow. These steps focus on sentencing, possible challenges to the verdict, and the defendant’s future within the justice system. Let’s walk through this process in a clear and student - friendly way. 1.1 Pos Ʃ rial Mo Ɵ ons: Asking for a New Trial After a guilty verdict, the defense has the right to request a new trial . This request is called a posttrial motion . If the trial judge agrees that something went wrong during the trial — such as a serious legal mistake — the judge may grant the motion. When this happens, the original verdict is set aside, and the case is tried again from the beginning. 1.2 Presentence Inves Ɵ ga Ɵ on: Learning About the Defendant Before sentencing takes place, a probation officer prepares a presentence investigation . This investigation looks closely at the defendant’s background and situation. It includes: • The current offense • Past criminal history • Education level • Employment record • Personal and family issues • Chances for rehabilitation All of this information is written into a presentence report . The report also recommends a sentence. Judges rely heavily on this report when deciding how to sentence the defendant.

  2. Page 2
    Read page 2 as text

    Study Guide These reports are useful beyond sentencing. They help: • Probation and parole officers plan supervision and rehabilitation • Prison officials classify inmates and assign programs • Parole boards decide whether an inmate should be released 1.3 Vic Ɵ m Impact Statements: Giving Vic Ɵ ms a Voice In most states, crime victims are allowed to submit victim impact statements before sentencing. These statements explain how the crime affected their lives emotionally, physically, or financially. In a few states, victims can even speak directly to the judge in court. Prosecutors often support victim impact statements because they allow victims to participate in the justice process. However, some legal experts raise concerns. They argue that: 1. Criminal trials should focus on justice for society as a whole, not personal revenge. 2. Sentences might be influenced by how sympathetic a victim seems, rather than by how serious the crime actually was. 1.4 The Sentencing Hearing: Deciding the Punishment At the sentencing hearing , both the prosecution and the defense present arguments about what the sentence should be. These arguments are usually based on the presentence report. Defendants have limited rights at this stage, but two are especially important: • The Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney present • The right of allocation , which allows the defendant to speak directly to the judge before the sentence is imposed This gives defendants a chance to express remorse, explain their actions, or ask for leniency. 1.5 What In fl uences a Judge’s Sentencing Decision? Judges typically focus on two main factors: 1. The seriousness of the crime

  3. Page 3
    Read page 3 as text

    Study Guide 2. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances In general, more serious crimes receive harsher sentences. Aggravating factors (like using a weapon) can increase punishment, while mitigating factors (like lack of prior offenses) may reduce it. 1.6 Concurrent vs. Consecu Ɵ ve Sentences: How Time Is Served Sometimes a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes . In these cases, the judge decides how the sentences will be served. • Concurrent sentences mean the defendant serves all sentences at the same time. • Consecutive sentences mean the defendant serves one sentence after another. This decision can greatly affect how long a person stays in prison. 1.7 Appeals: Challenging Legal Mistakes An appeal is a request for a higher court to review the case. It argues that legal or procedural errors occurred during the investigation, arrest, or trial. Important points about appeals: • Appeals focus on questions of law or procedure , not guilt or innocence. • Common claims include improper evidence or incorrect courtroom rulings. • Neither state nor federal governments can appeal a not guilty verdict (an acquittal). 1.8 What Can an Appellate Court Do? An appellate court has several options: • Affirm the lower court’s decision (uphold the conviction) • Reverse the decision (overturn the conviction) About 20 percent of appeals result in overturned convictions. If the court finds a harmless error — a minor mistake that did not affect the outcome — it still upholds the conviction. But if the court finds a serious error that violates important constitutional rights, it reverses the decision.

  4. Page 4
    Read page 4 as text

    Study Guide When a conviction is reversed, the defendant is not automatically freed. Instead, the case is sent back to the trial court for a new trial . The prosecutor then decides whether to retry the case. This does not violate double jeopardy, because legally, the first trial no longer counts. Sometimes the appellate court allows a new trial but rules that certain evidence cannot be used again if it was improperly admitted the first time. 2. Should Plea Bargaining Be Abolished? Plea bargaining is one of the most debated practices in the criminal justice system. It plays a major role in how cases are resolved, but many people disagree about whether it helps or harms justice. To understand this debate, it’s important to look at both sides. 2.1 Arguments for Abolishing Plea Bargaining Those who want to eliminate plea bargaining focus on concerns about fairness, rights, and justice . First, critics argue that plea bargaining is unfair to defendants . When a defendant accepts a plea deal, they give up important rights — most notably the right to a trial by jury . This can pressure individuals into accepting a deal rather than fully defending themselves in court. Second, opponents claim that plea bargaining allows criminals to avoid full responsibility for their actions. By accepting a lesser charge or lighter sentence, offenders may receive punishments that do not truly match the seriousness of their crimes. This can weaken public trust and respect for the justice system. Another concern is that plea bargaining can lead to unjustly lenient sentences . When offenders receive reduced punishment in exchange for pleading guilty, the final sentence may be too light given the harm caused by the crime. Finally, critics worry about the risk of wrongful guilty pleas . Some innocent people may plead guilty simply to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence at trial, even if they did not commit the crime. 2.2 Arguments Against Abolishing Plea Bargaining Supporters of plea bargaining emphasize its practical advantages .

  5. Page 5
    Read page 5 as text

    Study Guide One key benefit is flexibility. Plea bargaining allows judges and prosecutors to individualize punishment , tailoring sentences to the specific circumstances of each case. This can sometimes lead to fairer and less severe outcomes. Supporters also argue that plea bargaining is an administrative necessity . Without it, courts would be overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases going to trial. This would slow down the justice process and create major delays. In addition, plea bargaining saves time and money . Trials are expensive and time - consuming for everyone involved — the prosecution, the courts, and the defendant. Resolving cases through plea deals reduces these costs and helps the system run more efficiently. 2.3 Evalua Ɵ ng Plea Bargaining Because of its clear practical benefits, most experts agree that plea bargaining is unlikely to be abolished anytime soon . While it can introduce some unfairness into the justice process, many believe these problems are balanced by the advantages it provides to both the state and defendants. At present, the general consensus is that plea bargaining — despite its flaws — remains an essential part of the criminal justice system. 3. Introducing Defendants’ Rights In the famous case The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) , both the prosecution and the defense claimed they were engaged in a “search for the truth.” Prosecutors argued that they were trying to uncover the truth, while the defense said prosecutors were actually blocking it. This raises an important question: Were both sides focused more on winning the case than on finding the truth? This question helps introduce a larger idea about how the criminal justice system works. 3.1 More Than Just Finding the Truth According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz , criminal courts are designed to serve several goals , not just one. The first goal is seeking the truth — figuring out whether the defendant actually committed the crime. This is clearly important, but it is not the system’s only concern.

10 more pages in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Criminal Justice study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.