英美法法庭程序

Opening Statements. After the jury has been chosen, the attorneys present their opening statements. The plaintiff's attorney begins. He or she explains to the jury what the case is about and what the

plaintiff's side expects to prove. The defendant's lawyer can usually choose either to make an opening statement immediately after the plaintiff's attorney finishes or to wait until the plaintiff's case has been completely presented. If the defendant's attorney waits, he or she will present the entire case for the defendant continuously, from opening statement onward. Opening statements are valuable because they outline the case and make it easier for the jury to understand the evidence as it is presented.

Presentation of the Plaintiff's Case. In the normal civil case, the plaintiff's side is first to present and attempt to prove its case to the jury and last to make closing arguments. In presenting the case, the plaintiff's lawyer will normally call witnesses to testify and produce documents or other exhibits.

When a witness is called, he or she will undergo direct examination by the plaintiff's attorney. Then the defendant's attorney will have the opportunity to ask questions or cross-examine the witness. The

Arizona Supreme Court recently took steps to help jurors do a better job of making decisions in civil cases. Among other things, the state's highest court voted to allow jurors to pose written questions to witnesses through the judge. Other states are considering implementing Arizona's new practice. Following the

cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer may conduct a redirect examination, which may then be followed by a second cross-examination by the defendant's lawyer.

Generally speaking, witnesses may testify only about matters they have actually observed; they may not express their opinions.

However, an important exception to this general rule is that expert witnesses are specifically called upon to give their opinions in matters within their areas of expertise.

To qualify as an expert witness, a person must possess substantial knowledge about a particular field. Furthermore, this knowledge must normally be established in open court. Both sides often present experts whose opinions are contradictory. When this happens, the jury must ultimately decide which opinion is the correct one. When the plaintiff's side has presented all its evidence, the attorney rests the case.

Motion for Directed Verdict. After the plaintiff's case has been rested, the defendant will often make a motion for a directed verdict. With the filing of this motion, the defendant is saying that the plaintiff has not proved his or her case and thus should lose. The judge must then decide whether the plaintiff could win at this point if court proceedings were to cease. Should the judge determine that the

plaintiff has not presented convincing enough evidence, he or she will sustain the motion and direct the verdict for the defendant. Thus the plaintiff will lose the case. The motion for a directed verdict is similar to the pretrial motion to dismiss.

Presentation of the Defendant's Case . If the motion for a directed verdict is overruled, the defendant then presents evidence. The

defendant's case is presented in the same way as the plaintiff's case. That is, there is direct examination of witnesses and presentation of documents and other exhibits. The plaintiff has the right to

cross-examine witnesses. Redirect and recross questions may follow. Plaintiff's Rebuttal. After the presentation of the defendant's case, the plaintiff may bring forth rebuttal evidence, which is aimed at refuting the defendant's evidence.

Answer to Plaintiff's Rebuttal. The defendant's lawyer may present evidence to counter the rebuttal evidence. This

rebuttal-and-answer pattern may continue until the evidence has been exhausted.

Closing Arguments. After all the evidence has been presented, the lawyers make closing arguments, or summations, to the jury. The plaintiff's attorney speaks both first and last. That is, he or she both opens the argument and closes it, and the defendant's lawyer argues in between. In this stage of the process each attorney attacks the opponent's evidence for its unreliability and may also attempt to

discredit the opponent's witnesses. In doing so, the lawyers often wax eloquent or deliver an emotional appeal to the jury. However, the arguments must be based upon facts supported by the evidence and introduced at the trial.

Instructions to the Jury. Assuming that a jury trial has not been waived, the instructions to the jury follow the conclusion of the closing arguments. The judge informs the jury that it must base its verdict on the evidence presented at the trial. The judge's instructions also inform the jurors about the rules, principles, and standards of the particular legal concept involved. In civil cases a finding for the

plaintiff is based on a preponderance of the evidence. This means that

the jurors must weigh the evidence presented during the trial and determine in their minds that the greater weight of the evidence, in merit and in worth, favors the plaintiff.

The Verdict. The jury retires to the seclusion of the jury room to conduct its deliberations. The members must reach a verdict without outside contact. In some instances the deliberations are so long and detailed that the jurors must be provided meals and sleeping

accommodations until they can reach a verdict. The verdict, then, represents the jurors' agreement after detailed discussions and

analyses of the evidence. Sometimes the jury deliberates in all good faith but cannot reach a verdict. When this occurs, the judge may declare a mistrial. This means that a new trial may have to be conducted.

After the verdict is reached, the jury is conducted back into open court, where it delivers its verdict to the judge. The parties are informed of the verdict. It is then customary for the jury to be polled – the jurors are individually asked by the judge whether they agree with the verdict.

Post-trial Motions. Once the verdict has been reached, a

dissatisfied party may pursue a variety of tactics. The losing party may file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This type of motion is granted when the judge decides that reasonable persons could not have rendered the verdict the jury reached.

The losing party may also file a motion for a new trial. The usual basis for this motion is that the verdict goes against the weight of the

evidence. The judge will grant the motion on this ground if he or she agrees that the evidence presented simply does not support the verdict reached by the jury. A new trial may also be granted for a number of other reasons: excessive damages, grossly inadequate damages, the discovery of new evidence, and errors in the production of evidence, to name a few.

In some cases the losing party also files a motion for relief from judgment. This type of motion may be granted if the judge finds a clerical error in the judgment, discovers some new evidence, or determines that the judgment was induced by fraud.

Judgment and Execution. A verdict in favor of the defendant ends the trial, but a verdict for the plaintiff requires another stage in the process. There is no sentence in a civil case, but there must be a

determination of the remedy or damages to be assessed. This determination is called the judgment.

In situations where the judgment is for monetary damages and the defendant does not voluntarily pay the set amount, the plaintiff can ask to have the court clerk issue an order to execute the judgment. The execution is issued to the sheriff and orders the sheriff to seize the defendant's property and sell it at auction to satisfy the judgment. An alternative is to order a lien, which is the legal right to hold property that may be used for the payment of the judgment. Appeal. If one party feels that an error of law was made during the trial, and if the judge refuses to grant a posttrial motion for a new trial, then the dissatisfied party may appeal to a higher court. Probably the most common grounds for appeal are that the judge allegedly

admitted evidence that should have been excluded, refused to admit evidence that should have been introduced, or failed to give proper jury instructions.

An attorney lays the groundwork for an appeal by objecting to the alleged error during the trial. This objection goes into the trial record and becomes a part of the trial transcript, which may be reviewed by an appellate court. The appellate court decision may call for the lower court to enforce its earlier verdict or to hold a new trial.