What are the two basic functions of a trial court?

Answer 1

A court in which cases begin and in which questions of fact are examined. Courts in which lawsuits begin, trials take place, and evidence is presented. In the federal court system, the district courts are trial courts.

Answer 2

if you can be bovered to read all of this.

In most cases, the lawyers and judge agree before trial, often at pretrial conferences, what issues are in dispute and must be decided by the jury and what issues are not in dispute. Both sides reveal whom they intend to call as witnesses and, generally, what evidence they will introduce at trial. However, just because they agree on these matters before the trial doesn't mean that they agree on how the case should be decided. Rather, they hold a conference to avoid wasting time during the trial on irrelevant issues.

Through the pretrial discovery process, the lawyers try to learn as mush as possible about their opponent's case by asking to inspect documents and talking to people who know something about what happened. If the lawyers have done a thorough job of preparing the case, they shouldn't be surprised at any of the answers the opposing witnesses give to their questions. One of the basic rules trial lawyers follow is "Don't ask a question if you don't know what the answer will be." The lawyers and witnesses for each side also prepare for the trial by rehearsing their own questions and answers. Frequently, all of this pretrial activity results in a decision by both parties to settle the case without going to trial.

Pretrial activity in criminal cases

A good defense lawyer will also conduct a thorough investigation before trial in a criminal case, interviewing witnesses, visiting the scene of the crime, and examining any physical evidence. An important part of this investigation is determining whether the evidence the government plans to use to prove its case was obtained legally. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. To enforce this protection, the Supreme Court has decided that illegally seized evidence cannot be used at trial. For example, if the police seize evidence from a defendant's home without a warrant, the lawyer for the defendant can petition the court to rule on whether the evidence can be used at trial. The court then holds a hearing to determine whether the search was unreasonable under the circumstances. If the court rules that key evidence was illegally seized and so cannot be used, the government may drop the charges. However, if the government already has a strong case and the court rules that the evidence was obtained legally, the defendant may decide to plead guilty rather than go to trial.

Jury selection

If the parties have chosen a jury trial, it begins with the selection of jurors. Citizens are chosen for jury service through a process that is set out in laws passed by Congress and in rules adopted by the federal courts. First, citizens are chosen to come to court to be available to serve on juries. These citizens are selected at random from all of the registered voters in the district or from lists of licensed drivers. The judge and the lawyers in each case then choose the actual persons who will serve on their jury. To choose the jurors, the judge, and sometimes the lawyers, ask prospective jurors questions to determine of they will be able to decide the case fairly. This process is called voir dire. The judge excuses any jurors he or she thinks may not be able to be impartial, such as those who have had an experience that might make them favor one side over the other. The lawyers can reject a certain number of jurors without giving any justification.

Opening statements

Once the jury has been selected, the lawyers for both sides give their opening statements. The purpose of the opening statement is to allow each side to present its version of the issues in the case to the jury. Each lawyer also describes the evidence that will be introduced to try to persuade the jury to decide the case in favor of his or her client.

Direct and cross-examination

The first actual introduction of evidence begins after the opening statements. First, the government's attorney, or the plaintiff's lawyer, questions his or her own witnesses. When lawyers question witnesses whom they have asked to testify, it is called direct examination. After the direct examination of a government or plaintiff's witness, the defendant's lawyer has a chance to question the witness; this is called cross-examination. If, after the cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer wants to ask additional questions, that lawyer may do so on a re-direct examination, after which the defendant's lawyer has an opportunity for a re-cross-examination. After all of the plaintiff's witnesses have been examined, the defense calls its witnesses, and the same procedures are repeated.

The lawyers often introduce documents, such as bank records, or objects, such as firearms, as additional evidence.

Inadmissible evidence

The courts have established certain rules that must be observed in court proceedings to determine facts. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant's out-of-court confession to a crime cannot be used in a trial as evidence of the defendant's guilt if the confession resulted from the use of force or threats by the police. The courts adopted this rule because forced confessions obviously aren't trustworthy. Also, prohibiting their use as evidence may discourage the police from using force to try to get suspects to confess.

The federal courts have also adopted a rule to prevent repeated injuries to others following a plaintiff's injury. To encourage the defendant to repair the faulty condition that may have caused the injury, the rule forbids the introduction of any evidence of such repair, which could be seen as an admission of guilt. Thus, a lawyer for a plaintiff who slipped on a wet sidewalk cannot introduce evidence that the defendant put up a "slippery when wet" sign after the plaintiff's accident. Without this rule, the act of putting up the sign could be interpreted as an admission that the sign should have been there at the time of the plaintiff's accident and that the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the hazardous condition. Such an admission would damage the defendant's case.

Another rule concerning the introduction of evidence prohibits the use of secondhand testimony. Under this rule, a witness cannot testify to something that he or she heard about from someone else. If John Smith, for example, testified that "Bill Jones told me that he saw Frank Williams rob the Green Valley Bank," the testimony would be inadmissible as evidence. It would be called hearsay testimony. The courts have decided that hearsay is usually not very reliable and, therefore, cannot be used as evidence in a trial.

Sometimes a lawyer will break one of theses rules, either inadvertently or on purpose, and will try to present evidence to the jury that it shouldn't be permitted to hear. An opposing lawyer who believes that the testimony asked for or already given is improper may object to it and ask the judge to instruct the witness not to answer the question or to tell the jury to disregard an answer that has already been given. The judge cal either sustain the objection--and do as the objecting lawyer requests--or overrule it--and permit the testimony. When an objection is made, the judge alone decides whether the testimony is admissible.

Occasionally, the judge and the lawyers for both sides confer at the bench--sometimes called a sidebar--out of the jury's earshot but with the court reporter present to record what they say. At other times, they might confer in the judge's chambers. Often, they're discussing whether a certain piece of evidence in admissible. The court doesn't want the jury to hear such a discussion because they might hear something that can't be admitted into evidence and that might prejudice them in favor of one side or the other.

Closing statements and instructions

After the evidence has been presented, the lawyers make their closing statements to the jury, concluding the presentation of their cases. Like the opening statements, the closing statements don't present evidence but, rather, summarize the most important features of each side's case. Following the closing statements, the judge gives instructions to the jury, explaining the relevant law, how the law applies to the case being tried, and what questions the jury must decide. The jury then retires to the jury room to discuss the evidence and to reach a verdict. In criminal cases, the jury's verdict must be unanimous. The verdict must also be unanimous in civil cases, unless the parties have agreed before the trial that they will accept a verdict that is not unanimous.

By serving on a jury, citizens take advantage of a unique opportunity to participate directly in the operation of our government. They also make an important and vital contribution to the smooth functioning of our judicial system. To encourage citizens to participate, the courts spend a great deal of time and money trying to make jury service as comfortable and rewarding as possible.

Posttrial matters and sentencing

In federal criminal cases, if the jury (or judge, if there is no jury) decides that the defendant is guilty, the judge sets a date for imposing the sentence. In federal courts, the jury doesn't decide the punishment. When determining a sentence, the judge usually consults a written "pre-sentence report," which is prepared by one of the court's probation. The report describes the past criminal record of the defendant (if any), provides information about the defendant's family and employment status, and includes the defendant's and the government's versions of the events. The judge considers all of these factors in determining the proper sentence.

In civil cases, if the jury (or judge) decides in favor of the plaintiff, the judge usually orders the defendant to pay the plaintiff money (damages) or to take some specific action that will restore the plaintiff's rights. If the defendant wins the case, however, there is nothing more the trial court needs to do.

What Happens After the Trial?

A defendant who is found guilty in a federal criminal case, and the losing party in a federal civil case, both have a right to appeal their case to the U.S. court of appeals. The grounds for appeal usually allege that the district judge made an error either in procedure (such as by admitting improper evidence) or in interpreting the law.

The government cannot appeal if a criminal defendant is found not guilty, because the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no person shall "be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense. This reflects our society's belief that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to allow the government to harass a defendant through repeated retrials. The government can appeal in civil cases, as any other party can. Also, the losing party cannot appeal if there was no trial--if the defendant decided to plead guilty or if the parties settled their civil case out of court.

An appeal in a federal criminal case goes something like this: Suppose a law is passed by Congress that prohibits demonstrations within 500 feet of any embassy. Following the enactment of the law, a group of six people stands on a street corner near the embassy of Malandia and asks passersby to sign a petition protesting Malandia's human rights policies. The six people are arrested and charged with committing a federal misdemeanor. At trial, they testify that they were careful to stay more than 500 feet away from the embassy. However, the U.S. attorney calls a policeman as a witness, and he testifies that the corner they were standing on is within 500 feet of the embassy.

Before the jury trial begins it s deliberations, the lawyer for the defendants asks the district judge to instruct the jury that collecting signatures on a petition is not a "demonstration" and. therefore, if that was all they did, they weren't violating the law. The lawyer also argues that even if collecting signatures on a petition is a demonstration, the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from making it illegal to participate in a demonstration, and thus the judge should dismiss the case. The judge disagrees on both points. She instructs the jury that collecting signatures on a petition is a demonstration and refuses to dismiss the case, saying that Congress may prohibit demonstrations that pose a threat to foreign embassies without violating the First Amendment. To reach her decision, the district judge consults precedents--similar cases that have already been decided by other courts. She pays special attention to prior decisions of the court of appeals for her circuit.

Because the judge has demonstrated that collecting signatures is a demonstration and that Congress has the constitutional power to prohibit a demonstration near an embassy, she instructs the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence, whether the defendants collected signatures within 500 feet of the embassy.

Suppose, for our purposes, that the jury finds that the defendants did collect signatures within 500 feet of the embassy, and they are convicted of violating the law. The defendants can then appeal this decision to the U.S. court of appeals. The court of appeals probably won't throw out the jury's factual finding that the protesters were within 500 feet of the embassy. But the court of appeals may decide that the district judge wrongly interpreted the law; it may decide that Congress didn't intend for the law to prohibit gathering signatures on a petition. After deciding this, the court will probably determine that it doesn't have to decide whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit demonstrations near embassies. That decision will have to wait for a case in which there is an actual demonstration.

If the court of appeals decides that the trial judge incorrectly interpreted the law, as in our example, then it will reverse the district court's decision. In other words, the court of appeals will say that the district judge made a mistake in interpreting the law, and thus the defendants are not guilty after all. However, most of the time--but certainly not always--courts of appeals uphold, rather than reverse, district court decisions.

Sometimes when a higher court reverses the decision of the district court, it will send the case back to the district court for another trial, or, in legal terms, remand it. For example, in the famous Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's confession could not be used as evidence because he had not been advised of his right to remain silent or of his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. However, the government did have other evidence against him. The case was remanded for a new trial at which the improperly obtained confession was not used as evidence, but the defendant was still convicted.

Appellate court procedure

The courts of appeals usually assign a panel of three judges to each case. The panel decides the case for the entire court. Sometimes, when the parties request it, the entire appeals court, sitting en banc, will reconsider a panel's decision.

In making its decision, the panel reviews the record on appeal, which consists of all the documents filed in the case at trial along with the transcript of the proceedings at the trial. The court learns about the legal arguments of the lawyers from two sources. One is the lawyers' briefs. Briefs are written documents (often anything but brief) that explain each side's case and tell why the court should decide in its favor. The court may also hear oral argument in a formal courtroom setting. At oral argument, the lawyers have a limited amount of time to explain their cases, and the judges frequently question them about the relevant law.

After the submission of briefs and oral argument, the judges discuss the case privately, consider any relevant precedents, and reach a decision. At least two of the three judges on the panel must agree with the decision. One of those who agree is chosen to write an opinion that announces the decision and explains it. Any judge who disagrees with the majority's opinion may file a dissenting opinion, giving the reasons for disagreeing with the majority opinion. Many appellate opinions are published in books of opinions called reporters. The opinions are read carefully by other judges and lawyers looking for precedents to guide them in their own cases. The accumulated judicial opinions make up a body of law known as case law, which is usually an accurate predictor of how future cases will be decided.

If you visit a court of appeals in session, you'll notice that there are no jurors, witnesses, or court reporters. The lawyers for both sides are present, but the parties usually are not. This shows the differing nature of the task of the federal appeals courts, as opposed to that of the federal trial courts or district courts.

The United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. The decisions the Supreme Court hands down on cases appealed from lower courts set precedents for the interpretation of the Constitution and Federal Laws that all other courts, both state and federal, must follow.

Unlike the U.S. courts of appeals, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear every case that comes to it for review. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to hear a case. The Supreme Court is a different kind of appeals court--correcting errors made by trial judges is not its major function. The primary task of the Supreme Court is to clarify the law when other courts disagree about the interpretation of the Constitution or federal laws. Each year, losing parties ask the Supreme Court to review about 5,000 of the almost 30 million cases handled by the state and federal courts. most of these come to the court as petitions for a "writ of certiorari." The court selects only about 170 of the most significant cases to review.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review makes it role in our government even more vital. Judicial review is the power of a court, when deciding a case, to declare that a law passed by a legislature or that an action of an executive official is invalid because it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Although district courts, courts of appeals, and state courts can exercise the power of judicial review, their decisions are always subject to review by the Supreme Court on appeal. When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, however, its decision can only be overruled by a later decision of the Supreme Court or by an amendment to the Constitution. Seven of the 26 amendments to the Constitution invalidated decisions of the Supreme Court. However, most Supreme Court cases don't concern the constitutionality of laws, but, rather, the interpretation of laws passed by Congress and the states.

Although Congress has steadily increased the number of district and appeals court judges over the years, the Supreme Court has remained the same size since 1869, with a Chief Justice and eight associate justices. Like all federal judges, they are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. However, unlike the courts of appeals, the Supreme Court never sits in panels. All nine justices hear every case.

The Supreme Court begins each term on the first Monday of October. The term lasts until the Court has announced its decisions is all of the cases it has agreed to hear--usually until July. During the term, the Court hears oral argument during the week and holds a private conference at the end of the week to discuss the cases, reach decisions, and begin preparing the opinions. No opinions are released until the decisions are announced, mostly in the late spring and early summer. The more important Supreme Court decisions are discussed in the national news.

The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the lives of millions of people, from the arrestee who has a right to remain silent when questioned by the police and who must be informed of that right, to the magazine editor trying to decide whether publishing a disparaging article about a famous person will break the law. The widespread impact of some cases results in lively debates in the press. Some of these issues are never finally resolved in such a way that everyone agrees with the outcome. Nevertheless, by the time cases have been heard by the Supreme Court, all arguments for each side have received extensive consideration. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decisions are final in the sense that they cannot be overturned by another court.

Answer 3

A trial court is a court that actually tries your case. This is the actual court to which a case is assigned for trial. This term is designated as opposed to courts of appeal.