The Steps Between Arrest, Pre-Trial, Trial, And Appeals
It all starts when an officer arrests someone and the person who is accused is first taken into the custody. The same thing happens when the grand jury is at working and they are returning with an indictment or the prosecutor is filing information. Similarly, when the judge issues warrant for the arrest of the person and the person is then subsequently taken into the custody. At times, there are citations that are used in some cases when the nature of the offense is a bit less serious. The first thing that they are said before the trail is that they would be able to exercise their rights at any point of time. Now, the key difference in terms of the Federal and the state is the way treatment of the juveniles is carried out. In some states, juveniles are merely warned if there is a case that the court has waived jurisdiction over them. Now, the way whole thing proceeds further is that if the arrest has been made without warrant, there are some conditions. The law enforcement that are holding that person are supposed to take him into the custody for the given time period. It is an important phase due to the fact that there are certain administrative tasks that are needed to be handled. For instance, checking the finger prints, or if there is a case that the person is subject of any outstanding warrants in any case. Another thing that is noted is that how the case might vary depending on different facts that time when the person is acquainted. In some states, the time is on the higher side for the whole process as compared to the other but the maximum time for which someone can be taken into the custody is about 48 hours (Sheidaeian et al. 2017). It has to be noted that this person might not be held for the time period that goes beyond that, especially if it is the case when the whole thing is carried out before any initial appearance to say the least (Padfield & Bild, 2015). The role of magistrate is very important during the course of the whole process (Sheidaeian et al. 2017). The interesting thing is the way right of appeal works most of the times (Padfield & Bild, 2015). If the person is convicted, there is all the likelihood that the petition could be filed in the trial court that some sort of legal error has been carried out during the course of the legal process (Padfield & Bild, 2015). If the defence is able to prove the trial court’s error, the reversal of the conviction is carried out. Again this whole thing varies from one state to the another (Padfield & Bild, 2015).
Contingencies For Each Stage Of The Proceedings
During the course of the whole process, it has to be noted that there are many contingencies that are supposed to be taken care off (Hartley et al. 2017). The whole process starts with the filing of the plea bargain during the initiation process when the defendant chooses to plead guilty even before the trail in the case of the charged offenses (Hartley et al. 2017). There are instances when the more lenient sentences are carried out or the dismissal of the related charges can be carried out in an adequate manner (Padfield & Bild, 2015). Coming towards when the arrest has been made, if there is the suspect has committed some sort of a less serious offense, the policy might issue citation to the subject (Hartley et al. 2017). There are some contingencies in terms of the way bail process is supposed to work out as well (Hartley et al. 2017). Most of the times, bail is granted to the suspect when immediately a promise is being made to make sure that they make themselves available in all the corresponding court’s appearances (Hartley et al. 2017). At the same time, the same thing could be done during the course of the way later on when the bail review hearing is carried out (Padfield & Bild, 2015). There are some cases when the suspect might be released on their own recognisance (Hartley et al. 2017).
After the arraignment, when the first court appearance is being, the judge in most cases charges the filed against the defendant especially when the complaint is lodged against that person and the defendant chooses to plead guilty (Hartley et al. 2017). Even if there is a case that no contest is going to be happening, the charges are going to be pressed nevertheless (Padfield & Bild, 2015). The judges are also likely to review the defendant’s bail and the dates that are set for the future proceedings and the way they are carried out (Hartley et al. 2017). As far as the preliminary hearing is supposedly called out, the grand jury might call their own witness and based on that, there is likelihood that they would take the decision, the evidence is especially based on the fact that how the whole case is presented to the defendant in most of the cases (Hartley et al. 2017). At times, if there is a case that the jury is not able to reach to the unanimous verdict, the judge in these cases might be in the position to make sure that they declare a mistrial (Hartley et al. 2017). Another important contingency during the sentencing process is when the court determines the appropriate punishment (Hartley et al. 2017). It happens especially in the case when the convicted acts in a defendant and its right manner for the determination of the suitable sentence (Hartley et al. 2017).
Constitutional Protections For The Defendant
The basic constitutional right of the criminal defendant are based on the fact that how the criminal justice process is carried out (Hartley et al. 2017). That does not matter when the accused are indicted at the level of Federal, State or Tribal jurisdiction (Hartley et al. 2017). How these law works at the each of the level is interesting to say the least. The first phase is when the due process of the law is supposed to be carried out (Padfield & Bild, 2015). In that phase, the right of equal protection is given to the person (Elmquist et al. 2015). What it means most of the times that the rights and the privileges of the person are going to stay the same regardless of the way person’s ethnic or social background is (Jafari et al. 2017). During the next phase, it is showed that how they are free from the unreasonable treatment during any time period (Elmquist et al. 2015). There can be no case of unreasonable search and seizure of the person during the given time period (Jafari et al. 2017). The self incrimination is also not carried out during the given time period (Hartley et al. 2017). Specially if there is a case that they forced to testify one against themselves (Hartley et al. 2017). The right against double jeopardy also stays in the same manner (Jafari et al. 2017). It is especially important during the phase when the person is tried for one charge more than one time (Elmquist et al. 2015).
After the legal proceedings and the person have been arrested, there are many other rights the convict or the person who is arrested have at their disposal (Hartley et al. 2017). The first one is the fact that how they have right towards the legal counsel (Elmquist et al. 2015). At the same time, the speedy public trial and the jury trial is another aspect that is needed to be kept in mind (Elmquist et al. 2015). The witness should be in the position to make sure that they are in the position to confront the witness that is standing in front of them (Hartley et al. 2017). They have also the right to call for the supporting witnessed during the whole time period as well the right to be free from the punishment that might be too cruel or is unusual in some way (Jafari et al. 2017). There is also a case that the prohibition is supposed to be carried out against the way ex post facto laws are supposed to be presented in the given time period (Elmquist et al. 2015). When the court judgement is being passed, they also have the right to manage the federal felony proceedings. Then there is also this right through which they are able to contact criminal lawyer at any point of time. As a matter of fact, asking for the criminal lawyer during the whole trial is one of the basic rights of the person during the whole judicial process (Elmquist et al. 2015).
Effectiveness of the Current Criminal Prosecution System
There are number of reasons due to which the current criminal prosecution system is far from ideal when it comes to dealing with the criminals (Elmquist et al. 2015). One of the most widely acknowledged problem is the fact that how the waiting time that one gets to see for the defendants (Elmquist et al. 2015). There are many instances when the defendants have to wait for a considerably longer period of time as they wait for the trial (Hartley et al. 2017). Another thing that happens a lot most of the times, that they it is not always easy to determine that the decision that one gets to see during the course of the criminal prosecution is justified or it isn’t. That is not the end of the game though, even if the judgement is carried out, there is a likelihood that the case that is given in the sentence would be carried out at the rate that is much later (Hartley et al. 2017). There are instances that it does not happen at due to the fact that the offender itself cannot be found out (Jafari et al. 2017). Thus there is lot of time consuming processes that means that the criminal cases that could have been handled quickly are managed for much longer period of time (Elmquist et al. 2015). There are some important conclusions that can also be made in case of the way development of the audit report is supposed to be carried out. Specially if there is a case when the report is published in the Netherlands Court of Audit in the later date of 2012. It goes a long way in making sure that the performance of the Criminal Justice System can be determined for a longer period of time (Hartley et al. 2017). So there are some important considerations that are needed to be kept in mind during the whole process (Elmquist et al. 2015). There are some instances when people have raised question marks about the way justice system in the United States is supposed to work are what are some of the actions that are needed to be taken at the broader level to make sure that there is improvement in the overall justice system (Hartley et al. 2017). At the moment, there is also this lingering feeling among people that at times the way justice system works; there is likelihood that much more concrete efforts are needed to be carried out (Elmquist et al. 2015). There is a feeling that the sense of accountability that one gets to see in the other justice systems across the world is somewhat missing when one talks about the way America Justice System is working (Elmquist et al. 2015).
Recommendations To Make The System Fairer
One of the first things that are needed to be done is to make sure that the policing system that one gets to see these days is needed to be improved (Hartley et al. 2017). There are some long going concerns about the way police department is functioning at the moment, and lot of effort is needed to be carried out to make sure that the relevant transformation system in the legal system could be carried out one way or the another (Hartley et al. 2017). To make sure it happens, one of the first things that are needed to be done is to make sure that the national use of the Force Guidelines is carried out in the right manner (Elmquist et al. 2015). What should be happening is that the Congress or some Department must be working in the manner that they should make the usage of the National Force Handbook much more extensive (Elmquist et al. 2015). At the same time, there is a need to make sure that the level of accountability that one gets to see in the current policing system is needed to be managed in a right manner. Not only at the state level, but also at the Federal level, there are question marks about the long term performance of the police force, so amends are needed to be made in this regard for the longer period of time (Elmquist et al. 2015). There is also need to make sure that some sort of perspective is developed regarding the long term performance of the insurance companies as well (Hartley et al. 2017). Where insurance companies pay for the civil judgments from police misconduct lawsuits, legislatures should allow insurance claims to seek compensation from police departments that should have known that the police officer(s) in question would use excessive force (Hartley et al. 2017). At the same time, the legislatures would be providing the negligent hiring cause of action against the police departments (Elmquist et al. 2015). It is an important aspect in order to make sure that the employment of the officer and the other person is needed to be done in the manner to make sure that they are unlikely to be engaging in the excessive force (Elmquist et al. 2015). The other problem that is commonly witnessed most of the times is that how the racial implications are witnessed in the cases of the police cases (Hartley et al. 2017). There is a need for the clear policy to be developed in order to make sure that the bias that exists in terms of the way decision making is needed to be carried out should be looked at (Hartley et al. 2017). Also, it has to be made sure that there is a need for the development of the clear policy so that the level of racial bias of the officer can be determined (Elmquist et al. 2015).
Elmquist, J., Shorey, R. C., Febres, J., Zapor, H., Klostermann, K., Schratter, A., & Stuart, G. L. (2015). A review of Children’s Advocacy Centers’(CACs) response to cases of child maltreatment in the United States. Aggression and violent behavior, 25, 26-34.
Hartley, R. D., Rabe, G. A., & Champion, D. J. (2017). Criminal courts: Structure, process, and issues. Pearson.
Jafari, F., Mousavi, S. R., & Eslamie Hamedani, A. (2017). Comparative Study of the Right to Legal Counsel in the Prosecution Process in Law and International Criminal Courts Instruments and Procedures. Comparative Law Researches, 20(4), 25-52.
Padfield, N., & Bild, J. (2015). Text and materials on the criminal justice process. Routledge.
Sheidaeian, M., Fathi, M. J., Mansourabadi, A., & Nosrati, Y. (2017). The Challenges of Developing the Alternative to Criminal Prosecution by Taking the England Laws into Consideration. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(1), 195-2