trial

n.

1. Law. Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges or claims.
2. 1. The act or process of testing, trying, or putting to the proof: a trial of one's faith.
   2. An instance of such testing, especially as part of a series of tests or experiments: a clinical trial of a drug.
3. An effort or attempt: succeeded on the third trial.
4. A state of pain or anguish that tests patience, endurance, or belief: “the fiery trial through which we pass” (Abraham Lincoln).
5. A trying, troublesome, or annoying person or thing: The child was a trial to his parents.
6. A preliminary competition or test to determine qualifications, as in a sport.

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or used in a trial.
2. Attempted or advanced on a provisional or experimental basis: a trial separation.
3. Made or done in the course of a trial or test.

idioms:

on trial

1. In the process of being tried, as in a court of law.

trial by fire

1. A test of one's abilities, especially the ability to perform well under pressure.

[Middle English triall, a testing, from Anglo-Norman trial, from trier, to sort, try.]

SYNONYMS  trial, affliction, crucible, ordeal, tribulation. These nouns denote distress or suffering that severely tests resiliency and character: no consolation in their hour of trial; the affliction of a bereaved family; the crucible of revolution; the ordeal of being an innocent murder suspect; a time of relentless tribulation. See also synonyms at burden.

A statistical experiment, often leading to one of two outcomes: success or failure.

---

noun

1. The examination and deciding upon evidence, charges, and claims in court: hearing. See law.
2. A procedure that ascertains effectiveness, value, proper function, or other quality: assay, essay, proof, test, tryout. See investigate.
3. An operation employed to resolve an uncertainty: experiment, experimentation, test. See investigate.
4. A trying to do or make something: attempt, crack, effort, endeavor, essay, go, offer, stab, try. Informal shot. Slang take. Archaic assay. See try.
5. A state of pain or anguish that tests one's resiliency and character: crucible, ordeal, tribulation, visitation. See easy/hard.
6. Something hard to bear physically or emotionally: affliction, burden¹, cross, tribulation. See heavy/light, over/under.
7. One that makes another totally miserable by causing sharp pain and irritation: thorn. Informal pain. Idioms: pain in the neck, thorn in thefleshside. See pain/pleasure.

adjective

Constituting a tentative model for future experiment or development: experimental, pilot, test. See start/end.

Idioms beginning with trial:
trial and error
trial balloon
trial by fire
trials and tribulations

See also on trial.

---

adj

Definition: experimental
Antonyms: definite, known, proven

n

Definition: trouble, big problem
Antonyms: happiness, peace

---

n

An examination before a competent tribunal of the facts or law in issue in a cause of action for the purpose of determining the issue.

The seeds of the jury system were sowed in common‐law England. From England, the jury migrated to America. While the jury has taken root and prospered in American soil, it has withered in its original home.

In the United States, the right to jury trial is guaranteed by Article III and the Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. As a result, the jury is largely immune from legislative abolition. In England, no such constitutional protection is available; Parliament is free to abolish jury trials at any time, and it has. In English civil trials a jury is now available only in actions for fraud, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment—trials that, though high in notoriety, tend to be low in frequency. The picture in criminal law is not much brighter. In Magistrate's Court, where the overwhelming bulk of cases are disposed of, there is no right to a jury trial.

By comparison, in the United States a jury trial is constitutionally available in any nonjuvenile criminal prosecution where the potential penalty is in excess of six months (Baldwin v. New York, 1970) and in a federal civil case where more than twenty dollars are in controversy (Seventh Amendment). State constitutional provisions provide comparable protection. In fact, most criminal and civil cases are disposed of by guilty pleas and settlements (see Plea Bargaining).

Why has the right to trial by jury taken such disparate paths in England and the United States? The answer may lie in common ground, for aspects of the jury that are seen as strengths in the United States are viewed as weaknesses in England. The abolition of the jury in civil trials in England was attributable to several factors. There was concern, for example, that juries were time‐consuming and costly. There was also dissatisfaction with the vagaries of damage awards. A mathematical formula was substituted for the jury's deliberations on damages—a formula with multipliers, multiplicands, and resulting awards far less than would be expected from a jury.

In the United States, on the other hand, the ability of a jury to individualize damages, to take pain and suffering into account, to adjust for local living conditions, and to award punitive damages in some instances are seen as virtues. One Oklahoma court, in holding that a prospective juror who had for years been suffering from the results of an accident had been improperly excused from a jury, opined that a juror who had “experienced a good deal of pain” would help the jury reach a just result and, indeed, conceivably could be “the only one to fully understand and properly evaluate the pain element of plaintiff's damages” (Brown v. Oklahoma Transportation Co., 1978, p. 598). Similarly, a jury, because it is drawn from the community, can take into account the costs of living in a particular area, something that the English mathematical formula cannot adequately capture.

In criminal cases a concern for certainty has also led to calls for the jury's abolition in England. A criticism made of English juries is that they too often reach “perverse” verdicts. The term “perverse” is apparently used to signify a verdict with which the speaker, usually a government official, does not agree. The assumption of the critics seems to be that the sole function of the jury is to determine factual guilt. But this cannot be so. Otherwise, cases in which there were no disputed facts would not reach the jury. A judge may direct a verdict of acquittal, but in neither England nor America can a judge direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty, no matter how strong the evidence of factual guilt.

A jury in a criminal case does far more than decide issues of fact. It has the power to extend mercy where mercy is called for, and to mete out individualized justice. It has the power, although not necessarily the right, to nullify—that is, to return a verdict of not guilty even though a strict application of controlling legal principles to the facts would seem to require a verdict of guilty. It may decide, as in the case of a mercy killing, that the law was not intended to apply to such a state of facts and that to return a verdict of guilty would be unjust. Or it may decide that the law itself is unjust. Thus it might acquit where a defendant is charged with violating a law requiring enforced segregation of the races. It may also decide to acquit where the prosecution or the police have behaved in a reprehensible manner, as where the defendant has been beaten by the police or where the police have unfairly, in the jury's eyes, entrapped a defendant into committing a crime.

The strength of the jury lies in the fact that it is not totally circumscribed by legal rules; and that it has the practical power to do what is right, and not just what is technically required by law. While this power may on occasion have been abused, its proper exercise presents the jury in its finest light. The potential for abuse can and should be corrected by greater care in the selection and instruction of juries, but such potential may be an acceptable price for providing the jury the freedom to do justice in the individual case.

See also Grand Juries; Petit Juries.

Bibliography

• James J. Gobert, The Jury on Trial: A Political, Philosophical, and Psychological Examination of the Jury (1993).
• Harry Kalven and Hans Zeisel, The American Jury (1966)

— James J. Gobert

For more information on trial, visit Britannica.com.

A trial involves public examination of a legal issue in a court of law. A jury is a group of supposedly impartial citizens selected to determine the facts and sit in judgment of a defendant in a trial. The jury, at the end of the trial, reaches a verdict of gulity or innocent, which determines whether the defendant is freed or punished.

The right of an individual to a trial by jury is provided in three parts of the U.S. Constitution. Article 3, Section 2, says, “The Trial of all Crime, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.” Amendment 6 says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Amendment 7 says, “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollors, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved.”

The Supreme Court ruled in Baldwin v. New York (1970) that the right ot a trial by jury is provided to any adult accsed of a crime if the potential punishment is incarceration for more than six months. And, according to the 7th Amendment, a trial by jury is available to those involved in a common lawsuit (federal civil, or noncriminal, case) if the controversy involves more than $20.

In a trial by jury of a criminal case, the jury has the power to decide whether the accused person is guilty or innocent. The jury also may make decisions, within legally prescribed limits, about degrees of criminal behavior (for example, whether a person is guilty of murder or merely man slaughter) and the severity of punishment for a guilty person.

The traditional size of a jury, 12 people, is based on English legal traditions that were brought to America during the colonial era. However, some states have experimented with smaller juries, especially in trials of less serious crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Williams v. Florida (1970) that a six-person jury is not necessarily a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. Further, Section 48 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits th parties in a dispute to agree to a jury of less than 12 members.

Another tradition has been the requirement of a unanimous decision by a jury in reaching a verdict. Some states, however, have experimented with rules that permit verdicts by juries that are less than unanimous. Usually, these rules have required large majorities, such as 9 or 10 jurors, in reaching a verdict.

The Supreme Court decided in Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company v. Bombolis (1916) that jury verdicts in state court proceedings based on less than a unanimous vote were not denials of the fair legal procedures required by the due process clause in the Constitution. Later, however, in Burch v. Louisiana (1979), the Court overturned a Louisiana law that permitted verdicts to be reached by a 5-to-1 vote of a six-person jury. In contrast to some state court practices, the unanimous verdict rule remains the standard in federal cases involving a jury trial.

See also Bill of Rights; Rights of the accused

Sources

• David J. Bodenhamer, Fair Trial: Rights of the Accused in American History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

A judicial examination and determination of facts and legal issues arising between parties to a civil or criminal action.

In the United States, the trial is the principal method for resolving legal disputes that parties cannot settle by themselves or through less formal methods. The chief purpose of a trial is to secure fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the action. A trial seeks to ascertain the truth of the matters in issue between the parties and to apply the law to those matters. Also, a trial provides a final legal determination of the dispute between the parties.

The two main types of trials are civil trials and criminal trials. Civil trials resolve civil actions, which are brought to enforce, redress, or protect private rights. In general, all types of actions other than criminal actions are civil actions. In a criminal trial, a person charged with a crime is found guilty or not guilty and sentenced. The government brings a criminal action on behalf of the citizens to punish an infraction of the criminal laws.

The cornerstone of the legal system in the United States is the jury trial. Many of the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which set forth the law of the land, are based on the issues and disputes raised in jury trials. The jury trial method of resolving disputes is premised on the belief that justice is best achieved by pitting the parties against each other as adversaries, with each party advocating its own version of the truth. Under the adversary system, the jury, a group of citizens from the community, decides which facts in dispute are true. A judge presides at the trial and determines and applies the law. At the end of the trial, the judge will enter a judgment that constitutes the decision of the court. The parties must adhere to the judgment of the court.

Not all trials are jury trials. A case may also be tried before a judge. This is known as a court trial or a bench trial. A court trial is basically identical to a jury trial, except the judge decides both the facts and the law applicable to the action. A criminal defendant is always entitled to a trial by jury. Also, common-law civil claims usually are tried by jury. Often, however, actions created by statute may be tried only before the court. In some court trials, the court will have an advisory jury. The advisory jury observes the proceedings just as an ordinary jury would, but the judge need not accept the advisory jury's verdict.

Historical Background

The first settlers from England brought the jury trial to the United States because King James declared that certain crimes in the colonies were to be tried before juries. Jury trials were introduced in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628. In early civil trials, the parties could choose, by mutual consent, a jury or court trial. Criminal defendants could also choose a jury or court trial. By the late 1600s, several states were holding jury trials, but jury trials were unavailable to many citizens.

During the revolutionary period, many documents noted the importance of jury trials. The colonists feared that they could not get a fair trial before a judge who usually was appointed by the king or his representatives. The First Continental Congress declared in 1774 that the colonists were entitled to the "great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage." The 1775 Declaration of Causes and Necessities and Taking Up Arms specifically noted the deprivation of jury trials as a justification for forcibly resisting English rule. The Declaration of Independence noted that many colonists were not permitted jury trials.

The constitution of Virginia, which is considered the first written constitution of modern republican government, contained a bill of rights providing for a jury of twelve and a unanimous verdict in criminal cases, and trial by jury in civil cases. After several other states adopted similar provisions in their constitutions, the U.S. Constitution was drafted to require trial by jury in criminal cases. Although the Constitution did not provide for jury trials in civil cases, the first Congress incorporated trial by jury in civil cases into the Bill of Rights. Since that time, the trial by jury has become universal in the courts of the United States, although juries are not used in all cases.

Pretrial Matters

Technically, a trial begins after the preliminary matters in the action have been resolved and the jury or court is ready to begin the examination of the facts. The trial ends when the examination is completed and a judgment can be entered. The trial of a jury case ends on the formal acceptance and recording of a verdict decisive of the entire action. Before the trial may begin, however, certain preliminary matters must be resolved.

Venue

Venue refers to the particular county or city in which a court with jurisdiction may conduct a trial. The proper venue for most trials is the city or county in which the injury in dispute allegedly occurred or where the parties reside. Venue may, however, be changed to a different jurisdiction. Sometimes the proper venue for a trial is difficult to determine, such as in cases involving multinational corporations, or class actions involving plaintiffs from many different states. The venue for a criminal trial can change if a defendant persuades the trial court that he cannot obtain a fair trial in that venue. Venue is sometimes changed because of extensive pretrial publicity about the defendant that prejudices the public to the extent that the defendant cannot expect a fair and impartial jury in that venue.

Pretrial Motions and Conference

Motions may be made by the parties at any time prior to trial and may have a significant impact on the case. For example, in a criminal case, the trial judge might rule that the primary piece of incriminating evidence is not admissible in court. In a civil case, the judge might grant summary judgment, which means that no significant facts are in dispute and judgment may be entered without the need for a trial. Before the trial begins, the court holds a pretrial conference with the parties' attorneys. At the pretrial conference, the parties narrow the issues to be tried and decide on a wide variety of other matters necessary to the disposition of the case.

Public vs. Closed Trials

Although most trials are presumptively open to the public, sometimes a court may decide to close a trial. Generally a trial may be closed to the public only to ensure order and dignity in the courtroom or to keep secret sensitive information that will come to light during the trial. Thus, a trial might be closed to the public to protect classified documents, protect trade secrets, avoid intimidation of witnesses, guard the safety of undercover police officers, or protect the identity of a juvenile. Although trials are usually open to the public, most jurisdictions do not permit television cameras or other recording devices in the courtroom. A growing minority of states permits cameras in the courtroom, although the judge still has the discretion to exclude the cameras if she feels that their presence will interfere with the trial.

Trial Participants

Judge

The judge presides over the court and is the central figure in a trial. It is the presiding judge's responsibility to conduct an orderly trial and to assure the proper administration of justice in his court. The judge decides all legal questions that arise during the trial, controls the presentation of evidence by the parties, instructs the jury, and generally directs every aspect of the trial. The judge must be impartial, and any matter that lends even the appearance of impartiality to the trial may disqualify the judge. Because of his importance, the presiding judge must be present in court from the opening of the trial until its close and must be easily accessible during jury trials while the jury is deliberating on its verdict.

The judge holds a place of honor in the courtroom. The judge sits above the attorneys, the parties, the jury, and the witness stand. Everyone in the courtroom must stand when the judge enters or exits the courtroom. The judge is addressed as "your Honor" or "the Court." In the United States, judges usually wear black robes during trials, which signify the judges' importance. The judge will conduct the trial with dignity. If the judge feels that a person is detracting from the dignity of the proceedings or otherwise disrupting the courtroom, she may have the person removed.

A trial judge has broad powers in his courtroom. In general, the presiding judge has discretion on all matters relating to the orderly conduct of a trial, except those matters regulated by rule or statute. The judge controls routine matters such as the time when court convenes and adjourns and the length of a recess. When the parties offer evidence, the judge rules on any legal objections. The judge also instructs the jury on the law after all of the evidence has been submitted.

Although the judge has broad discretion during the trial, her rulings must not be arbitrary or unfair. Also, the judge must not prejudice the jury against any of the parties. Unless special circumstances are present, however, a party can do little during the trial if it disagrees with a ruling by the judge. The judge's decision is usually final for the duration of the trial, and the party's only recourse is to appeal the judge's decision after the trial has ended.

Parties

In a trial, the term party refers to an individual, organization, or government that participates in the trial and has an interest in the trial's outcome. The main parties to a lawsuit are the plaintiff and the defendant. In a civil trial, the plaintiff initiates the lawsuit and seeks a remedy from the court for private civil wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant or defendants. There may be more than one plaintiff in a civil trial if they allege similar wrongs against a common defendant. In a criminal trial, the plaintiff is the government, and the defendant is an individual accused of a crime.

A party in a civil trial may be represented by counsel or may represent himself. Each party has a fundamental right to be present at every critical stage of the proceedings, although this right is not absolute. A party may, however, choose not to attend the trial and be represented in court solely by an attorney. The absence of a party does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court must afford the parties the opportunity to be present, but if the opportunity is given, a party's absence does not affect the court's right to proceed with the civil trial.

In a criminal trial, the government is represented by an attorney, known as the prosecutor,who seeks to prove the guilt of the defendant. Although a criminal defendant may represent herself during trial, she is entitled to representation by counsel. If a defendant cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint one for her. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right in most jurisdictions to be present at every critical stage of the trial, from jury selection to sentencing. Also, many court decisions have held that the trial of an accused without her presence at every critical stage of the trial violates her constitutional right to due process. A defendant may waive this right and choose not to attend the trial or portions of the trial.

Jury

The jury is a group of citizens who are charged with finding facts and reaching a verdict based on the evidence presented during the trial. The jury renders a verdict decisive of the action by applying the facts to the law, which is explained to the jury by the judge. The jury is chosen from the men and women in the community where the trial is held. The number of jurors required for the trial is set by statute or court rule. Criminal trials usually require twelve jurors, whereas civil trials commonly use six-person juries. Also, alternate jurors are selected in the event that a regular juror becomes unable to serve during the trial. Longer trials require more alternate jurors. The jurors sit in the jury box and observe all of the evidence offered during the trial. After the evidence is offered, the judge instructs the jury on the law, and the jury then begins deliberations, after which it will render a verdict based on the evidence and the judge's instructions on the law. In civil trials, the jury determines whether the defendant is liable for the injuries claimed by the plaintiff. In criminal trials, the jury determines the guilt of the accused.

Attorneys

Every party in a trial has the right to be represented by an attorney or attorneys, although a party is free to conduct the trial himself. If a party elects to be represented by an attorney, the court must hear the attorney's arguments; to refuse to hear the attorney would deny the party due process of law. In a criminal trial, the defendant has a right to be represented by an attorney, or attorneys, of his choosing. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, and the crime is more serious than a petty offense, the court will appoint one for him. An indigent party in a civil lawsuit is generally not entitled to a court-appointed attorney, although a court may appoint an attorney to represent an indigent prisoner in a civil rights case.

The attorneys are present in a trial to represent the parties, but they also have a duty to see that the trial is fair and impartial. The trial judge may dismiss an attorney or impose other sanctions for improper conduct. Thus, attorneys must at all times conform their conduct to the law. Attorneys must avoid any conduct that might tend to improperly influence the jury. Also, attorneys' conduct is governed by various ethical rules. Within these bounds, however, the attorney may zealously represent her client and conduct the trial as she sees fit.

Witnesses

A witness is a person who testifies at trial to what he has seen, heard, or otherwise observed. Witnesses provide the chief means by which evidence is offered in a trial. Through witnesses, a party will attempt to establish the facts that make up the elements of his case. A witness may testify on virtually any matter if the matter is relevant to the issues in the trial and the witness observed or has knowledge of the events to which he is testifying. Witnesses are also used to provide the foundation for documents and other physical evidence. For example, if the state wishes to introduce the defendant's fingerprints from a crime scene in a criminal trial, it must call as a witness the police officer who identified the fingerprints in order for the fingerprints to be admitted as evidence. The police officer would testify that he found the fingerprints at the crime scene and that he determined that the fingerprints matched the defendant's fingerprints.

A witness must testify truthfully. Before giving testimony in a trial, a witness takes an oath or affirmation to tell the truth; a witness who refuses the oath or affirmation will not be permitted to testify. A typical oath states, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." The exact wording of the oath is not important, however. As long as the judge is satisfied that the witness will tell the truth, the witness may take the witness stand.

A witness who testifies falsely commits the crime of perjury. Nonparty witnesses are sometimes not permitted to observe the testimony of other witnesses in order to eliminate the danger of a witness's changing her testimony to make it consistent with the testimony of other witnesses.

Virtually anyone may be a witness in a trial. Generally, a person is competent to be a witness in a trial if he is able to perceive, remember, and communicate the events to which he is to testify and understands his obligation to tell the truth. Thus, even a young child may be a witness, as long as the judge is satisfied that the child is able to relate the events to which he will testify and understands that he must tell the truth. Similarly, people with mental disabilities may testify at a trial if they meet the above criteria.

One special type of witness is an expert witness. Normally, a witness may only testify as to what she saw, heard, or otherwise observed. An expert witness, if properly qualified, may offer her opinion on the subject of her expertise. Expert witnesses are used when the subject matter of the witness's testimony is outside the jury's common knowledge or experience. Expert witness testimony is often extremely important in lawsuits. For example, in a criminal trial where the defendant pleads the insanity defense, the experts' opinions on whether the defendant was insane at the time of the crime will most likely decide the outcome of the trial.

Support Personnel

A number of people may assist the trial judge in conducting the trial. The court reporter, also known as the stenographer, records every word stated during the trial, except where the judge holds a conference off the record. The court reporter prepares an official transcript of the trial if a party requests it. The bailiff is an officer of the court who keeps order in the courtroom, has custody of the jury, and has custody of prisoners who appear in the courtroom. In federal court, U.S. marshals have custody of prisoners who appear in court. A language interpreter is present in a courtroom when a party or witness is unable to speak English. Finally, most judges have a law clerk who assists the judge in conducting research and drafting legal opinions.

Trial Process

Jury Selection

Although a trial does not technically begin until after the jury is seated, jury selection, or voir dire, is commonly referred to as the first stage of a trial. At the beginning of a trial, the jury is chosen from the jury pool, a group of citizens who have been randomly selected from the community for jury duty. The judge and the attorneys representing the parties question each of the prospective jurors. If a prospective juror is for any reason not able to judge the evidence fairly, he will not be allowed to sit on the jury. This is known as a challenge for cause. A prospective juror may be challenged for conviction of a serious crime, a financial interest in the outcome of the controversy, involvement in another proceeding concerning one of the parties, a business, professional, personal, or family relationship with a party, or any other reason that might indicate bias. In addition to challenges for cause, the parties' attorneys may issue a certain number of peremptory challenges against prospective jurors. An attorney may use a peremptory challenge to keep any prospective juror off the jury even if he has no reason to believe that the prospective juror would judge the trial unfairly. A peremptory challenge may not be based on race, however.

Once the jurors and alternate jurors are seated, the judge usually gives the jury preliminary instructions on the law. The purpose of the preliminary instructions is to orient the jurors and explain their duties. Typically, the judge will summarize the jurors' duties, instruct them on how to conduct themselves during recesses, and describe how trials are conducted. The judge may summarize the nature of the cause of action and the applicable law. The preliminary instructions usually last only a few minutes.

Opening Statements

After the judge gives the preliminary instructions, the attorneys for the parties give their opening statements to the jury. During opening statements, the lawyers outline the issues in the case and tell the jury what they expect the evidence will prove during the trial. The purpose of the opening statement is to give a general picture of the facts and issues to help the jury better understand the evidence. The opening statements usually last ten to thirty minutes, although sometimes they are much longer. The judge can limit the time for opening statements.

Usually an attorney will present her opening statement as a story, giving a chronological overview of what happened from the party's viewpoint. Although the attorneys will present the case in the best possible light for their clients, the opening statements should be factual, not argumentative. The opening statements are not evidence, and the attorneys should not offer their opinion of the evidence. Attorneys are not permitted to make statements that cannot be supported by the evidence they expect to present during the trial.

Cases in Chief

After the opening statements, the plaintiff, who has the burden of proving his allegations, begins his case in chief, in which he attempts to prove each element of each legal claim alleged in the complaint (civil) or indictment (criminal). After the plaintiff has concluded his case in chief (and assuming the judge does not dismiss the plaintiff's claim for lack of proof), the defendant presents his case in chief. The defendant presents evidence to refute the plaintiff's proof and establish any affirmative defenses. The defendant may also present evidence to support claims he has against the plaintiff (counterclaims) or third parties (cross-claims).

During the case in chief, a party may offer evidence of any type in any order it wishes. Before the evidence may be presented to the jury, however, it must be admitted into evidence by the judge. If a party objects to the admission of any evidence, the judge must rule on the objection. The admission of evidence is governed by the rules of evidence. Each jurisdiction has its own rules of evidence, but the rules in most jurisdictions are patterned after the Federal Rules of Evidence. The rules of evidence are extensive and require hours of study by trial attorneys. If the judge determines that evidence offered by a party is admissible under the rules, she will admit the evidence.

During their cases in chief, the parties have four possible sources of proof: witnesses, exhibits, stipulations, and judicial notice. The parties elicit proof from a witness through an examination. The party who calls the witness conducts the initial examination, known as the direct examination. The party's attorney asks the witness questions designed to elicit testimony helpful to his case. After the direct examination is completed, the opposing party may cross-examine the witness. During cross-examination, a party will often attempt to discredit the witness's testimony by questioning the truthfulness of the witness or raising inconsistencies or weaknesses in the witness's testimony. In most jurisdictions a party may only cross-examine the witness about the subjects discussed in the testimony given during the direct examination. The party who originally called the witness may continue to question the witness following the cross-examination. This is known as redirect examination and is usually used to clarify or rebut issues raised during the cross-examination. The other party could then recross-examine the witness concerning the testimony offered during the redirect examination. In some jurisdictions the judge may ask the witness questions, and a few jurisdictions permit the jury to ask the witness questions, usually written questions read by the judge.

Witnesses can offer proof in a variety of ways. Most commonly, a witness will simply describe what she saw, heard, or observed to establish events making up elements of a party's claim. For example, in an assault and battery trial, the plaintiff might call a witness to testify that she saw the defendant strike the victim. A witness might be used to establish the foundation for the admission of other evidence, such as business records. Many jurisdictions allow character witnesses. Usually used in criminal cases, character witnesses can offer evidence of specific character traits or evidence of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Also, as noted earlier, expert witnesses may offer opinions on matters outside the common experience of ordinary jurors.

Rules of evidence govern the testimony of witnesses. Although the rules are far too extensive to discuss in depth, several rules are important in every trial. Rule 402 states the basic tenet of evidence law: evidence that is relevant to a fact in issue in the trial is admissible, and evidence that is not relevant is not admissible (subject to various exceptions stated in the rules). Virtually any evidence may be excluded from a trial under this rule if the trial judge believes that it will not help prove a fact at issue in the trial. Rule 802 is the "hearsay rule," which prohibits a witness from testifying about statements made out of court, unless special circumstances apply. Such statements are known as hearsay statements and are thought to be unreliable evidence. Thus, generally, witnesses may only testify about their own knowledge and observations. The hearsay rule contains many complicated exceptions, however, and is often criticized as being too rigid and overly complicated.

Although the rules of evidence apply to both criminal and civil trials, certain rules have heightened importance in criminal trials. Rule 609 generally prohibits the admission of evidence that a witness has been previously convicted of a crime when the evidence is used to attack the witness's credibility. Evidence of prior convictions is admissible to attack the credibility of a witness when the prior crime was serious or involved dishonesty or false statement. The judge can still exclude such evidence if a long period of time has passed since the conviction or if the evidence would unduly prejudice the jury. This rule is often important when a criminal defendant with a criminal record is considering whether to testify in his defense. Also, Rule 608 generally prohibits evidence attacking the character of a witness. However, the rule does allow evidence concerning the veracity of the witness. A party may not offer evidence of the truthfulness of a witness, however, unless the other party has questioned the witness's credibility. Finally, although not a rule of evidence, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that a witness cannot be compelled to testify if the testimony could lead to the witness's self-incrimination.

Besides witnesses, exhibits are the other principal form of evidence in a trial. The four principal types of exhibits are real objects (guns, blood, machinery), items used for demonstration (diagrams, models, maps), writings (contracts, promissory notes, checks, letters), and records (private business and public records). Before an exhibit may be admitted as evidence in a trial, a foundation for its admissibility must be laid. To provide foundation, the party offering the exhibit need only establish that the item is what it purports to be. The foundation for the evidence may come from witness testimony or other methods. As with witness testimony, the admissibility of exhibits is governed by rules of evidence and is within the discretion of the trial judge.

The third type of evidence that the parties may offer during their case in chief is the stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement between the parties that certain facts exist and are not in dispute. Stipulations are shown or read to the jury. The purpose of a stipulation is to make the presentation of undisputed evidence more efficient. For example, the parties might stipulate that an expert witness is an expert in her field so that time is not wasted establishing the witness's credentials.

Judicial notice is the fourth method of offering evidence to the jury. If the judge takes judicial notice of a fact, the fact is assumed true and admitted as evidence. Judges take judicial notice of facts that are commonly known in the jurisdiction where the trial is held (the Empire State Building is in Manhattan) and facts that are easily determined and verified from a reliable source (it rained in Manhattan on May 28, 1997). As with stipulations, the primary purpose of judicial notice is to speed the presentation of evidence that is relevant but not in dispute. When a party finishes offering evidence to the jury, he rests his case.

Rebuttals

After the defendant rests her case in chief, and any motions are decided, the plaintiff may introduce evidence that rebuts the defendant's evidence. Rebuttal evidence is usually offered to prove a defense to the defendant's counterclaims or to refute specific evidence introduced by the defendant. Finally, the defendant may rebut evidence offered during the plaintiff's rebuttal case. This is known as the defendant's surrebuttal case.

Motions

Although motions might be made on a variety of issues at any moment in a trial, certain important motions are made during virtually every trial. After the plaintiff rests his case in chief, the defendant usually moves for a directed verdict. (This motion has different names in different jurisdictions. In criminal cases, this type of motion is often called a motion for judgment of acquittal. The substance of the motion is the same in virtually every jurisdiction.) A motion for directed verdict asserts that the plaintiff failed to establish a critical element of his claim during his case in chief. If the plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence to support an element of his claim, the judge will enter judgment for the defendant. The defendant need not offer any evidence; the trial is over. For purposes of the motion, the judge will consider all of the plaintiff's evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. For example, the judge will consider all of the testimony offered by the plaintiff's witnesses to be true. Although motions for directed verdict are made in virtually every trial, they seldom are granted.

After the defendant's case in chief, the plaintiff may move for a directed verdict on any of the defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The motion is identical to a defendant's motion for a directed verdict, except that the judge will consider the defendant's evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. If the defendant has offered evidence to support all of the elements of her affirmative defense or counterclaim, the plaintiff's motion for directed verdict is denied. Finally, either party may make a motion for directed verdict after the close of all evidence. Again the judge considers the evidence in the light least favorable to the party making the motion and decides whether probative evidence supports the nonmoving party's claims.

Closing Arguments

After both sides have rested, the attorneys give their closing arguments. During closing arguments, the attorneys attempt to persuade the jury to render a verdict in their clients' favor. Typically, the attorneys tell the jury what the evidence has proved, how it ties into the jury instructions (which the attorneys and judge agreed upon in a conference held before closing arguments), and why the evidence and the law require a verdict in their favor. Because closing arguments provide the attorneys with their last chance to persuade the jury, the closing arguments often provide the most dramatic moments of a trial. Closing arguments typically last thirty to sixty minutes, although they can take much longer. In most jurisdictions, the plaintiff argues first and last. That is, the plaintiff argues first, then the defendant argues, and then the plaintiff makes a rebuttal argument. Actually, the party with the burden of proof usually argues first and last. This is almost always the plaintiff, but sometimes the only issues remaining for the jury to decide are affirmative defenses or counterclaims raised by the defendant. Also, a few jurisdictions allow only one argument per side, and in a few of these, the defendant argues first, plaintiff last.

Jury Instructions

After the attorneys have completed their closing arguments, the judge instructs the jury on the law applicable to the case. In most jurisdictions the judge will both read the instructions and provide written instructions to the jury. A few jurisdictions only read the instructions. The jury will also be given verdict forms. On the verdict form, the jury will indicate how it finds on each of the claims presented during the trial. Sometimes the jury may be given a special verdict form asking how the jury finds on a specific issue of fact or law. The jury instructions normally last ten or fifteen minutes, although they may take much longer in complex cases.

Jury Deliberations and Verdict

After the judge has finished instructing the jury, the jury retires to the jury room to begin deliberations. At this time the alternate jurors are dismissed, although some jurisdictions allow the alternate jurors to participate in deliberations. The court bailiff brings the exhibits and written instructions to the jury room and safeguards the jury's privacy during deliberations.

It is largely up to the jury to decide how to organize itself and conduct the deliberations. The judge usually only instructs the jurors to select a foreperson to preside over the deliberations and to sign the verdict forms that reflect their decisions. Jurors sometimes have questions during their deliberations. Usually, they write their questions and give them to the bailiff, who takes them to the judge. The judge confers with the attorneys and sends a written response to the jury. A jury might deliberate anywhere from a few minutes to several days.

Usually the jury must reach a unanimous verdict, although majority verdicts are sometimes allowed in civil cases. If the jury tells the judge it cannot reach a verdict, the judge usually gives the jury some further instructions and returns it to the jury room for further deliberations. If the jury still cannot reach a verdict, however, the jury is deadlocked, and a mistrial is declared. The case must then be retried. Usually, however, the jury reaches a verdict. When the jury reaches a verdict and signs the verdict forms, it notifies the judge that it has reached a decision. The attorneys, if they are not in the courtroom, are called, and everyone returns to the courtroom. The judge asks the foreperson if the jury has reached a verdict. The foreperson responds "yes," and the verdict forms are read aloud, usually by the court clerk. In most jurisdictions the parties may poll the jury by asking each individual juror if he or she agrees with the verdict. Obviously, in a court trial without an advisory jury, there is no jury deliberation or verdict. The judge simply enters a judgment based on the applicable law and his own view of the facts.

Posttrial Motions and Appeal

Although a jury trial technically ends when the verdict is read, the attorneys normally file posttrial motions. The losing party often will file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This motion asks the judge to set aside the jury's verdict as manifestly against the weight of the evidence presented at the trial and to enter judgment for the moving party instead. This motion is not applicable to a court trial. Also, the losing party will often move for a new trial, claiming that errors made during the trial by the judge require the case to be retried. Usually the judge will conduct a hearing on posttrial motions.

After the judge decides the posttrial motions, she enters judgment in accordance with the jury verdict and the posttrial motions. Once the judge enters the judgment, the court loses jurisdiction, and the case ends in the trial court. If the losing party still believes that errors in the trial caused an incorrect judgment, it may appeal to an appellate court. The appellate court may agree and order a new trial, in which case the trial process begins anew.

See: civil procedure; criminal procedure.

Experiment; refers usually to the trying out of a substance or a material in order to determine its effect. The trial may be a blind experiment, a clinical trial, a double blind trial or a pilot trial.

• clinical t., therapeutic t. — a test which uses patients as test objects for a drug regimen, a physical procedure, the results being compared with those in patients receiving a placebo or an alternative treatment.

A cynical view of the world by Ambrose Bierce

n.

A formal inquiry designed to prove and put upon record the blameless characters of judges, advocates and jurors. In order to effect this purpose it is necessary to supply a contrast in the person of one who is called the defendant, the prisoner, or the accused. If the contrast is made sufficiently clear this person is made to undergo such an affliction as will give the virtuous gentlemen a comfortable sense of their immunity, added to that of their worth. In our day the accused is usually a human being, or a socialist, but in mediaeval times, animals, fishes, reptiles and insects were brought to trial. A beast that had taken human life, or practiced sorcery, was duly arrested, tried and, if condemned, put to death by the public executioner. Insects ravaging grain fields, orchards or vineyards were cited to appeal by counsel before a civil tribunal, and after testimony, argument and condemnation, if they continued in contumaciam the matter was taken to a high ecclesiastical court, where they were solemnly excommunicated and anathematized. In a street of Toledo, some pigs that had wickedly run between the viceroy's legs, upsetting him, were arrested on a warrant, tried and punished. In Naples and ass was condemned to be burned at the stake, but the sentence appears not to have been executed. D'Addosio relates from the court records many trials of pigs, bulls, horses, cocks, dogs, goats, etc., greatly, it is believed, to the betterment of their conduct and morals. In 1451 a suit was brought against the leeches infesting some ponds about Berne, and the Bishop of Lausanne, instructed by the faculty of Heidelberg University, directed that some of "the aquatic worms" be brought before the local magistracy. This was done and the leeches, both present and absent, were ordered to leave the places that they had infested within three days on pain of incurring "the malediction of God." In the voluminous records of this cause celebre nothing is found to show whether the offenders braved the punishment, or departed forthwith out of that inhospitable jurisdiction.

---

IN BRIEF: The act of testing something. Also: Legal proceedings.

A fox should not be of the jury at a goose's trial. — Thomas Fuller (1608-1661)

Quotes:

"Hear my voice, O God, in my prayer; preserve my life from fear of the enemy. [Psalms 64:1]" - Bible

"For thou, O God, hast proved us; thou has tried us, as silver is tried. [Psalms 66:10]" - Bible

"Appeal. In law, to put the dice into the box for another throw." - Ambrose Bierce

"Trial. A formal inquiry designed to prove and put upon record the blameless characters of judges, advocates and jurors." - Ambrose Bierce

"Iron till it be thoroughly heated is incapable to be wrought; so God sees good to cast some men into the furnace of affliction, and then beats them on his anvil into what frame he pleases." - Anne Bradstreet

"It always looks darkest just before it gets totally black." - Charlie Brown

See more famous quotes about Trials

Dreaming of being on trial may indicate that the dreamer needs to be more accepting of himself or herself and less judgmental of others.

---

Dansk (Danish)
n. - prøve, forsøg, undersøgelse, eksperiment, eksamen
v. tr. - prøve
v. intr. - konkurrere
adj. - prøve-

idioms:

• on trial    i retten
• time trial    konkurrence på tid
• trial and error    trial-and-error metode, prøve sig frem
• trial balance    kontoafstemning
• trial balloon    prøveballon
• trial run    forsøg, prøvekørsel

Nederlands (Dutch)
proces, strafzitting, test, beproeving, bezoeking, last(post), oefenwedstrijd

Français (French)
n. - (Jur) procès, essai, test, (Mus, Sport) épreuve, difficulté
v. tr. - tester
v. intr. - tester
adj. - d'essai, expérimental

idioms:

• on trial    (Jur) (être) jugé pour
• time trial    course contre la montre
• trial and error    tâtonnements, démarche essai erreur
• trial balance    bilan de vérification
• trial balloon    ballon d'essai
• trial run    essai

Deutsch (German)
n. - Prozess, Verfahren, Test, Prüfung, Wettkampf
adj. - Versuchs..., Probe...
v. - versuchen

idioms:

• on trial    angeklagt sein, unter Anklage stehen
• time trial    Zeitfahren
• trial and error    Ausprobieren
• trial balance    Probebilanz
• trial balloon    Versuchsballon
• trial run    Testfahrt, Probelauf

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - δοκιμή, δοκιμασία, δίκη, βάσανο, ταλαιπωρία
adj. - δοκιμαστικός

idioms:

• on trial    (νομ.) υπό εκδίκαση
• time trial    κούρσα με ατομική χρονομέτρηση κάθε δρομέα
• trial and error    εμπειροτεχνική μέθοδος
• trial balance    (οικον.) προσωρινό ισοζύγιο
• trial balloon    (μετεωρ.) μετεωρολογικό αερόσταστο
• trial order    δοκιμαστική παραγγελία
• trial run    δοκιμαστική λειτουργία ή διαδρομή

Italiano (Italian)
processo, prova, tormento, causa

idioms:

• trial and error    sperimentazione
• trial balance    bilancio di verifica
• trial balloon    lancio sperimentale
• trial run    collaudo

Português (Portuguese)
n. - experiência (f), julgamento (m), prova (f), ensaio (m)
adj. - relativo a tribunal

idioms:

• on trial    em julgamento, em prova
• time trial    corrida (f) contra o relógio (Esp.)
• trial and error    ensaio e erro, método de tentativas
• trial balance    balancete de verificação
• trial balloon    balão de ensaio, balão meteorológico, balão sonda
• trial run    marcha de ensaio, experiência

Русский (Russian)
(юр.) суд, испытание, проба, попытка

idioms:

• on trial    находиться под судом, взять на пробу/испытание
• time trial    гонки на время
• trial and error    действовать методом проб и ошибок
• trial balance    (бухг.) отчет дох. и расх. всех открытых счетов
• trial balloon    пробный
• trial run    пробное испытание

Español (Spanish)
n. - juicio, vista, proceso, prueba, ensayo, experimento, sufrimiento, molestia, tormento, audiencia
v. tr. - probar, enjuiciar
v. intr. - poner a prueba, someter a juicio
adj. - de ensayo, de prueba

idioms:

• on trial    estar en juicio
• time trial    prueba contrarreloj, cronometrada
• trial and error    tanteo, método de tanteos
• trial balance    balance de comprobación
• trial balloon    globo sonda
• trial run    prueba o ensayo preliminar de un vehículo

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - prov, försök, experiment, provning, provkörning, provtur, rättslig behandling, prövning (jur.), prövning, hemsökelse, vedermöda, examensprov, prövning
adj. - prov-, försöks-

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
试验, 审讯, 考验, 受审讯, 尝试的, 试验性的

idioms:

• on trial    在试验中, 在受审
• time trial    滑雪或赛车等的计时赛
• trial and error    尝试错误法, 不断摸索, 反复试验
• trial balance    试算表
• trial balloon    测验风速或气流的气球, 试探舆论的行动或声明等
• trial run    试车, 试航

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 試驗, 審訊, 考驗
v. tr. - 審訊
v. intr. - 受審訊
adj. - 嘗試的, 試驗性的

idioms:

• on trial    在試驗中, 在受審
• time trial    滑雪或賽車等的計時賽
• trial and error    嘗試錯誤法, 不斷摸索, 反復試驗
• trial balance    試算表
• trial balloon    測驗風速或氣流的氣球, 試探輿論的行動或聲明等
• trial run    試車, 試航

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 시도, 시련, 공판
v. tr. - 시도하다, 시련을 겪다
v. intr. - 시도하다
adj. - 시험적인, 예선의, 공판의

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 試験, 試み, 裁判, 試練, 困りもの, トライアル

idioms:

• on trial    試しに, 試験の結果, 審理中で
• trial and error    試行錯誤
• trial balance    試算表
• trial balloon    試案, 測風気球
• trial order    試買注文
• trial run    試運転

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) محاكمه, أختبار, تجربه (صفه) رحله تجريبيه لسفينه, تجريبي‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮משפט, שפיטה, מבחן, בחינה, בוחן, ניסיון, ניסוי, מצוקה, מקור-סבל‬
v. tr. - ‮ערך מבחן ביצועים‬
v. intr. - ‮עבר מבחן ביצועים‬
adj. - ‮של משפט, משמש במשפט, נעשה באמצעות ניסוי, משמש בניסוי, משמש כדוגמית בניסוי‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.

To select your translation preferences click here.

trial	trial of massachusetts
trial membership	Veritas Replication Exec Trial