1.11 The Trial

Opening Statements

Once the jury is impaneled, the parties begin the trial with opening statements, which are usually straightforward recitations of the facts and legal issues that are central to the case.

The Plaintiff’s Case

After opening statements, the plaintiff begins to present his or her version of the case, called the case-in-chief. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to establish the facts sufficient to meet the burden of proof required by the law related to the claims.

Burden of Proof

In legal matters, four burdens of proof are applied in different contexts: prima facie, preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prima Facie

First is the prima facie case. This means that, at first sight, the facts establish some truth with sufficient weight as to require a defendant to be called to answer for it. It is the lowest standard of proof. If there are enough facts to meet this standard, then the judge rules that the defendant must respond to his or her accusers.

Preponderance of Evidence

The second burden of proof is preponderance of evidence, meaning, in the vernacular, “more likely than not.” In other words, the evidence is of sufficient weight to likely be found true.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

The third burden of proof, clear and convincing evidence, is yet a higher burden. It mandates that the evidence must be so clear that it requires the assent of every reasonable mind. In other words, the proof is unambiguous.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Fourth, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which applies only in the criminal law context, is where the evidence establishes that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts.

Meeting the Burden of Proof

At trial, the plaintiff attempts to meet the relevant burden of proof by questioning witnesses through direct examination and submitting documents related to the examination. If the plaintiff’s case-in-chief does not establish the facts and law sufficient to support the claim, the defendant may make a motion for directed verdict, wherein he or she asks the court to decide in his or her favor without the presentation of a defense. If this motion is granted, the case is over. If the motion is denied, the defense may then conduct a questioning cross-examination of the witnesses in order to impeach them through showing they were misinformed, untruthful, biased, or incompetent. A plaintiff may then rehabilitate a witness’s credibility through re-direct examination.

The Defendant’s Case

After the plaintiff has finished his or her case, the matter then shifts to the defendant to show that the facts alleged by the plaintiff are not true, that the law does not support the claim, or that the defendant’s behavior was excused. Like the plaintiff, the defense may present witness testimony and documentary evidence. The matter then shifts back to the plaintiff to challenge the defense claims in what is called the rebuttal, and then back again to the defendant for a rejoinder.

Closing Statements

At the end of each party’s case, the judge closes the case to new evidence and gives the parties time to make a closing statement, wherein each party attempts to debunk the theory of the other’s case and urge the jury to rule in its favor. The judge then instructs the jury on the law and the case goes to the jury for deliberation. Deliberation is the jurors’ careful discussion about the facts as presented at trial and about the law as instructed by the judge.

Deliberation, Verdict, and Judgment

The process of deliberation may be a few minutes or may take several days. Upon reaching a decision, the jury issues a verdict—a complete finding and conclusion on the issues presented. The court then enters a judgment, the official decision, in accordance with the jury verdict. In extremely rare cases, if a judge discovers bias or jury misconduct, he or she may reject or amend the verdict under the procedure known as judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Additionally, upon motion by either party, a judge, if he or she believes the manifest weight of evidence did not support the jury verdict, may order a new trial. In a criminal case, a jury might not reach the requisite number of votes to either convict or acquit a defendant. This is known as a hung jury, and will result in a new trial.