Within the legal context, it is important to understand courtroom standards and the roles played by various court personnel in shaping the litigation processes. Therefore, the paper aims at analyzing the roles of different legal teams; evaluating dependence and interdependence among respective groups and the impact of ethical and legal standards on the criminal justice systems and their effect in shaping both procedural and substantive law.
First, judges are appointed or elected officials that conduct court proceedings. They decide whether provided evidence is enough to support the allegations of crime and the accused when a case first comes to the court. Judges also set bail terms and have an obligation to ensure that pleas of not guilty or guilty are made voluntarily. When handling criminal cases, judges assume the role of a jury who functions as a trier of fact and law to analyze provided evidence; to determine whether the defendant is guilty and the ultimate conviction. Secondly, prosecutors engage in crime investigation with the police to contact victims, crime suspects and witnesses. Depending on the nature of crime or evidence provided, prosecutors determine whether or not to instigate legal proceedings. Upon initiation of legal actions, prosecutors appear in court to prove that the suspect has committed crime through questioning the witnesses, suspect and experts. Thirdly, legal counsel constitutes public defenders and civil defense attorneys who act in defense of the accused by protecting the client’s interests and ensures that the law works as expected (Collins, Dumas & Moyer, 2017). Court reporters are part of the court personnel whose role is to record trial proceedings and police who provide evidence in courts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Although the judicial system is an independent body, interactions between the different court personnel mainly the judges, legal counsel and prosecutors highlights the mutual interdependence in legal systems. As mentioned earlier, prosecutors have the independence to analyze the nature of crime and attempts at proving whether the accused is guilty. On the other hand, legal counsels act as front liners to law enforcement by questioning unjust criminal system. They attempt at ensuring that prosecutors adhere to their requirement of being just in offering convictions and reminding judges of their constitutional and professional mandate of protecting the rights of the defendant. At the centre of the legal systems are the judges who oversee court proceedings and trials. Besides, in some jurisdictions judges have the independent advantage of going against the precedent which offers some flexibility to interpretation of the law (Niazi, 2016). Often the independence of roles among the parties mentioned underlies the procedural sequences that aim at balancing the impact of the judge’s final decision on both parties and establishment of the legal principle of fairness.
Nevertheless as mutually interdependent units, legal systems entail the interrelationship between different legal personnel. Having different areas of knowledge and bases of power, legal counsels, prosecutors, judges and other members influence each other. For instance, in most legal systems, prosecutors present sentencing demands while defense counsel presents sentencing recommendations and the decision making by the judge. Advantageously, the mutual interrelationships between the different parties results attributes to familiar and stable relationships which leads to close working associations. Strengthened partnerships among major parties including the legal counsel, prosecutors and judges leads the creation of cooperative relationships that promote the betterment of negotiations, less reliance on formalities and improved utilization of informal arrangements (Joy, 2016). Nonetheless, mutual interdependence fosters negotiations and unilateral decision making that aligns with the common goals of reducing uncertainty; maintaining group cohesion; disposing of case loads and doing justice.
Emerging pitfalls of mutual interdependence of different legal teams stem from the adversarial proceedings. The latter system is anchored on the structural format of presenting different versions of facts from prosecutor and legal counsel and neutral decision making by the judge. However, since the nature of the prosecutor’s role entails constant contact with the trial judge, there is a higher possibility of developing a prosecutor-judge relationship that differs from other lawyers. The acquired team spirit and interdependent relationships leads to the adoption of improper ex parte communications between the trial judge and prosecutor (West, 2017). Ultimately, such communications obstruct the decision making process and impede the success of neutral independent decisions in courts.
Nevertheless, judges are bestowed with the formal authority of directing actions in courts and as final decision makers. Impartiality is an attribute that imposes judges to conceptualize and interpret the significance, meaning and the implications of the law. In relation to judges, justice not only entails the mere interpretation of the law but mandates judges to understand both the complainant and defendant sides and show compassion. Besides, with the legal powers to initiate and lead preliminary investigations, prosecutors have discretion on the matter that will proceed to trial while legal defense attorneys are legally mandated to interview witnesses and obtain evidence while uphold dignity and respect to individual autonomy (Yaroshefsky, 2016). Although various procedural judicial discretion imposes vulnerability on litigants, the failure of legal teams to carry out legally or ethically accepted operations impacts on the societal moral reasoning and elucidates the common perception of pervasively unjust and corrupt criminal justice systems (Gill, Rotter, Burridge & Allsopp, 2018). Besides, both procedural and substantive criminal laws are seen as putting into practice the above ethical and legal considerations to ensure that presented criminal cases are solved accordingly by presuming the innocence of the accused and obtaining substantial proof in order to determine conviction.
References
Collins, T. A., Dumas, T. L., & Moyer, L. P. (2017). Being Part of the “Home Team”: Perceptions of Professional Interactions with Outsider Attorneys. Journal of Law and Courts , 5 (1), 141-171.
Gill, N., Rotter, R., Burridge, A., & Allsopp, J. (2018). The limits of procedural discretion: Unequal treatment and vulnerability in Britain’s asylum appeals. Social & Legal Studies , 27 (1), 49-78.
Joy, P. A. (2016). Lawyers serving as judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers at the same time: legal ethics and municipal courts. Wash. UJL & Pol'y , 51 , 23.
Niazi, S. M. (2016). Independence of the Judiciary in Pakistan. Academy of Social Science Journal , 1 (1).
West, T. S. (2017). The Convening Authority and Ex Parte Communications: A Threat to the Legitimacy of Military Justice. Geo. J. Legal Ethics , 30 , 1115.
Yaroshefsky, E. C. (2016). Duty of Outrage: The Defense Lawyer's Obligation to Speak Truth to Power to the Prosecutor and the Court When the Criminal Justice System Is Unjust. Hofstra L. Rev. , 45 , 531.
