The visible content of procedural law is determined by a proper understanding of the legal entities. The independence and consistency of the procedural law as a licensed unit is not disputed by anyone, and the legislation processualisation trend makes its felt, on the contrary. 1 It becomes dominant not only concerning the emergence of new types of state work and equal arrays of the procedural law norms and institutions, but is also linked to strengthening the legality requirements in the exercise of the functions of the state and its bodies, and the guarantee of implementing the rights of the citizens. The civil trial procedure in the United States often involve disputes between two individuals with reference to their constitutional responsibility towards each other.
Stages of the Procedure
Initial Court Appearance
A judge presides over the initial court appearance in a civil case. 2 During this stage, the accused is reminded of their constitutional rights, including the right to an attorney, the right to a preliminary trial, and the right to a fair trial. The accused is also made aware of their charges. It is also during this stage that the presiding judicial personnel makes a decision regarding the person’s liberty. The court may decide to grant the person freedom on bail terms during the entire duration of the proceedings. For misdemeanor offenses, the initial appearance can serve as the trail phase, eliminating the need for multiple court appearances. 3
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Opening Statements
Once the accused has been processed, the trial process begins with the opening statements from two of the parties involved. The complainant team gives its opening remarks. In a civil procedure, the complainant is tasked with the burden of truth and thus gives a more detailed opening statement. The defense team then also gives its opening remarks for the trial. During the two preliminary statements, the teams present the facts of the case. The complainant walks the judge through what it will try to prove during the trial, i.e., what the accused did and the proof of how and why they did it. On the other hand, the defendant walks the judge through their rebuttal process and the evidence they will present in trying to nullify the accusation(s).
Trial: Presentation of Evidence and Witness Testimony
This is the case-in-chief phase of the trial procedure. During this stage, the complainant sets forth all the evidence they have regarding their case. Witness accounts and expert testimony are imperative to solidify the case. The defense also presents their detailed account of the case, providing evidence and witnesses if available. The judge plays the role of the prosecutor and cross-examines the witnesses on behalf of the two parties involved. 4 In some instances, the opposing party may be allowed to cross-examine the witness. This is often aimed at loosening their defenses and making their account less strong.
Closing Arguments and Verdict
The closing arguments are similar to the opening remarks, in which the complainant and the defendant sum up their cases. The two parties are given a final chance to convince the judge before the final verdict is passed. The complainant tries to convince the judge why the evidence provided is enough to find the defendant guilty, while the latter seeks to prove why the complainant has failed at their ‘burden of proof.’ 5 The judge then takes some time to analyze the facts of the case and decides the winner and loser of the procedure. The verdict has to be impartial and based on the presented facts, evidence, and the law. The case is considered settled after the loser has agreed to compensate the winner, based on the nature of the case.
Hypothetical Problem
Bias and favoritism are significant hypothetical problems that may be encountered in the procedure. Bias arises when the presiding judge fails to give a verdict based on the facts of the case and the evidence provided but on other unconstitutional and personal grounds. 6 External influence, for example, is a major impediment to a fair trial process. A civil procedure may involve influential parties. A verdict against an influential party may spark animosity between the judge and the party. In some cases, the verdict may have overreaching consequences on the economic, social, and political order. To ensure that the order is not disrupted, the judge may be compelled to make a decision in favor of a particular party. Besides their logical assessment of the prevailing situation, corruption may also be a reason for bias and favoritism.
Legal loopholes may also impede justice and fair verdict. These loopholes include the lack of uniformity in the interpretation of certain constitutional clauses and policies. 7 While one judge may perceive that a certain deed warrants punishment, the deed may be a misdemeanor to another judge. In practice, a law may be interpreted and applied differently in different jurisdictions, creating a schism between the judicial processes. There is also the influence of one’s local culture on their understanding of the law and legal processes. Also, it may be difficult to accurately ascertain the ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ of the trial process. In a multifaceted trial, the plaintiff might win in some issues, while the defendant wins in other issues. This balance makes it difficult for the judge to give a verdict that will be perceived as fair by both parties.
Hypothetical Solution
Effective judicial processes are contingent on the coherence and unity of the involved parties. The accused, complainant, and the jury have the responsibility of providing the pertinent information without withholding even the subtle details. It is also important to ensure that the legal statutes that oversee the procedure are not interfered with. To ensure that the problem of lack of uniformity is overcome, civic education on the importance of adherence to one’s constitutional duty has to be implemented. 8 It is important for all citizens to know that interfering with any component of the procedure is a criminal offense that warrants a judicial process on itself.
The judicial and legislative bodies are integral in ensuring that uniformity is achieved during the process. Thus, there have to be laws governing the conduct of judicial officers, particularly concerning their ethical and professional code of conduct. When officers involved in a civic procedure adhere to the stipulated codes of conduct, incidences of irregularities during the procedure are curtailed.
Bibliography
Bonica, Adam, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, and Maya Sen. "Influence and ideology in the American Judiciary: Evidence from Supreme Court law clerks." (2017).
Coelho, André Luiz Souza. "Critical-discursive theory of the judicial procedure." (2017).
Spaulding, Norman W. "Due Process without Judicial Process: Antiadversarialism in American Legal Culture." Fordham L. Rev. 85 (2016): 2249.
Subrin, Stephen N., and Thomas O. Main. "Braking the Rules: Why State Courts Should Not Replicate Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Case W. Res. L. Rev. 67 (2016): 501.
Tyler, Tom R., Phillip Atiba Goff, and Robert J. MacCoun. "The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement." Psychological science in the public interest 16, no. 3 (2015): 75-109.
Main, Thomas O. "Our Passive-Aggressive Model of Civil Adjudication." McGeorge L. Rev. 50 (2018): 605.
1 Subrin, Stephen N., and Thomas O. Main. "Braking the Rules: Why State Courts Should Not Replicate Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Case W. Res. L. Rev. 67 (2016): 501.
2 Tyler et al., 2015
3 Coelho , André Luiz Souza. "Critical-discursive theory of the judicial procedure." (2017).
4 Main, Thomas O. "Our Passive-Aggressive Model of Civil Adjudication." McGeorge L. Rev. 50 (2018): 605.
5 Main, 2018.
6 Spaulding, Norman W. "Due Process without Judicial Process: Antiadversarialism in American Legal Culture." Fordham L. Rev. 85 (2016): 2249.
7 Spaulding, 2016.
8 Bonica, Adam, Adam S. Chilton, Jacob Goldin, Kyle Rozema, and Maya Sen. "Influence and ideology in the American Judiciary: Evidence from Supreme Court law clerks." (2017).
