Pros and cons of jury trials

In many nations particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, trials by jury are seen as a check against state power, and the belief is that a jury is likely to be more sympathetic to the defendant than the state is.

This last point may be criticized on grounds that in highly emotional cases, such as child rape, the jury may be tempted to convict based on personal feelings rather than on conviction behind reasonable doubt. Former attorney, then later minister of Justice Robert Badinter remarked about jury trials in France that they were like riding a ship into a storm, because they are much less predictable than bench trials.

Another issue with jury trials is the potential for jurors to be swayed by prejudice, including racial considerations. An infamous case was the 1992 trial in the Rodney King case in California, in which white police officers were acquitted of violently beating a black man by a jury consisting mostly of whites, without any black jurors, despite an incriminating videotape of the action. This led to widespread questioning about the case and riots ensued.

The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the US contrasts with popular beliefs in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen. Consider Japan, for instance, which used to have optional jury trials for capital or other serious crimes between 1928 and 1943. The defendant could freely choose whether to have a jury or trial by judges, and the decisions of the jury were non-binding. During the Tōjō-regime this was suspended, arguably due to the popular belief that any defendant who risks his fate on the opinions of untrained laymen is almost certainly guilty.

The United States

In the United States every person accused of a felony has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises from the 6th amendment that states in part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only.

Trial procedure

A jury trial starts with the arrest or formal accusation of the defendant when the prosecutor (who represents the government) files an indictment or information. The defendant is brought before the judge and informed of the charges against him, and usually informed of other rights including the right to counsel from an attorney. After that there is usually a period of preparation for both parties, during which there may be negotiations for a plea bargain, pleadings may be filed or motions made, and any other actions considered prepatory.

On the day of trial the court (or clerk of the court) convenes a panel of members of the public from whom a jury will be selected. Both sides are asked if they are "ready," (a technical term), and if answered in the affirmative the court procedes to voir dire. During voir dire the judge and/or attorneys involved may question the potential jurors to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the questioning (or sometimes during in certain jurisdictions) the attorneys may request that certain members of the panel not sit on the jury through a "peremptory strike " or a "strike for cause ." After the strikes the court impanels the jury by administering an oath. In most jurisdictions the jury consists of 12 jurors (and perhaps one or more alternates) for a felony trial, and six jurors for a misdemeanor trial. The judge will then permit the prosecution and defense to make opening statements.

The prosecutor (except in very rare circumstances) then begins to present their case. Prosecutors go first because they have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which they have been accused. The prosecutor may present evidence as simple as one person's testimony, up to and as complicated as months of scientific evidence and expert testimony. Any evidence must be in accordance with the rules of evidence, and all disputes are handled through objections by the opposing party and rulings by the judge. After the prosecutor is finished, she will "rest."

The defendant is then permitted to present evidence in the same manner and form as the prosecutor, but is not required to do anything as the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecutor. The defense will then rest. There may then be a rebuttal by the prosecution (if reserved), and sometimes a rebuttal by the defense.

When both parties have rested, the court will direct them to begin closing statements (also called "summation" in some jurisdictions). The prosecutor goes first, followed by the defense, and then the prosecutor is permitted to speak again. Once again, this is because the prosecution bears the sole burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime, and because of that is allowed to speak first and last.

The jury will then be instructed on the law by the judge in the form of a jury instruction and/or charge. The jury will then be directed to a private room where they will select a foreperson and decide whether the defendant committed the acts of which he was accused. Upon making a determination they will inform the bailiff, who will inform the judge.

All parties will be recalled to the courtroom, where the judge will ask the jurors if they have reached a verdict. If they answer in the affirmative the verdict will be read by the judge or clerk or foreperson (depending on jurisdiction). If the verdict is not guilty the defendant will be released (for that charge). If the verdict is guilty the defendant will be sentenced.

In capital cases and other criminal cases (depending on jurisdiction) the jury may be held to determine the sentence for a crime. What follows is a mini-trial or hearing in which the prosecution and defense may present evidence of mitigation and aggravation of the crime, and then have a sentence imposed.

Waiver of jury trial

The vast majority of US criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by plea bargain. Both prosecutors and defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by negotiation.

In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial. Only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant have a waiver of jury trial. However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial.

In the US, trial by jury is also available in many civil cases.

Following the English tradition, U.S. juries have usually been comprised of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict was required to be unanimous. However, in many jurisdictions, the number of jurors is often reduced to a lesser number (such as six) by legislative enactment, or by agreement of both sides. Some jurisdictions also permit a verdict to be returned despite the dissent of one or two jurors.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom consists of three separate legal jurisdictions, but there are some features common to all of them, in particular there is seldom anything like the US voir dire system, jurors are usually just accepted without question. Controversially, in England there has been some screening in sensitive security cases, but the Scottish courts have firmly set themselves against any form of jury vetting.

In England and Wales (which have the same legal system) juries consist of 12 people. In the past a unanimous verdict was required. This has been changed so that, if the jury fail to agree after a given period at the discretion of the judge, they may reach a verdict by a 10-2 majority.

In Scotland juries consist of 15 people. There has never been a requirement for verdicts to be unanimous, they are reached by simple majority. (People were occasionally hanged on majority verdicts in Scotland.) Juries may also return the unusual not proven verdict. The backing of at least eight jurors is needed to return a guiltly verdict, even if the number of jurors drops below 15 e.g. because of illness. It is not possible for Scots juries to "hang", if there is not sufficient support for any verdict then this is treated as a verdict of not guilty.

Criminal jurisdiction

Criminal jurisdiction is a term used in constitutional law and public law to describe the power of courts to hear a case brought by a state accusing a defendant of the commission of a crime. It is relevant in three distinct situations:

1. to regulate the relationship between states, or between one state and another;
2. where the nation is a federation, to regulate the relationship between the federal courts and the domestic courts of those states comprising the federation; and
3. where a state only has, to a greater or lesser extent, a single and unified system of law, it is the law of criminal procedure to regulate what cases each classification of court within the judicial system shall adjudicate upon.

Extraterritorial issues

Supranational courts

Under the public international law system, de jure states are sovereign within their own territorial boundaries. A few states such as The Netherlands have adopted a monist approach, i.e. they accept international and municipal laws as part of a single system. Thus, whether a supranational court or tribunal has criminal jurisdiction over its territory or citizens, will be determined by international law. The majority of states are dualist, i.e. they will only accept international obligations through the process of incorporation, say by signing and adopting treaties and conventions. Hence, whether a supranational court or tribunal will have jurisdiction and, if so, over what subject matter and over what period of time, will be decided by the sovereign government of the day.

International crime

Transborder crimes take place in more than one state. For example, a defendant may fire a gun, post a package, or write or speak words in State A, but the effects of each action are felt in State B. Some states claim a public policy justification to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by, or crimes committed against their citizens, even though these crimes are committed outside their borders. Thus, one of the classifications of crime is "crimes against the state". These are crimes that affect the interests of the state or its administration. In extreme cases, a state may wish to prosecute one of its own citizens for treason even though all the relevant acts and omissions took place in another state. Similarly, if a citizen of State A is acting in a way that interferes with the friendly relations between State A and State B, it may be expedient to prosecute this citizen no matter where the relevant acts have been committed. Jurisdiction may also be claimed over crimes on board the ships and aircraft operated by corporations based in the given state, no matter where these craft may be located at the relevant time. In English law, where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, if it was committed by a British citizen. In R v Cheong (2006) the appellant was living in Guyana in 1983. He shot and killed a man who had just robbed his wife and sister-in-law. Under local law he was charged only with the unlicensed possession of a firearm; but as a British citizen, s9 OAP Act 1861 applied when he returned to England and he was charged with murder. On appeal, a conviction for manslaughter was upheld. At a level of conventional policy, there are two main theories to justify the exercise of jurisdiction:

In the United States

The United States is a federation of sovereign states. The U.S. Constitution creates a federal government and legislature which has general powers over the territory of the whole and over foreign policy, whereas the individual states have their own governments that, within the scope allowed by the federal constitution, have local territorial jurisdiction. There is a system of federal courts which have jurisdiction to hear charges alleging federal crimes, and state courts have jurisdiction to hear charges alleging violations of local state law.

U.S. federal courts

For a federal court to have jurisdiction, the crime to be prosecuted must either have been created pursuant to an express or implied constitutional grant of authority, or must have been committed in an area owned by or under the exclusive control of the federal government. Examples of crimes that are based on constitutional grants of authority include tax evasion (implied from the Article I grant of power in the Taxing and Spending Clause, and in the Sixteenth Amendment); possessing illegal substances (under the Commerce Clause), and conspiring to violate civil rights (under the Fourteenth Amendment). Courts have given a particularly broad interpretation to the Commerce Clause power, permitting Congress to make a federal crime of many common law crimes such as kidnapping or murder if state lines are crossed during commission of the crime, and such as embezzlement and blackmail using instrumentalities of commerce such as telephone lines or the U.S. mail. Examples of crimes that are based on areas owned by or under the exclusive control of the federal government include crimes committed in the District of Columbia, in U.S. Territories, in U.S. National Parks, in federal courthouses and federal prisons, and aboard airplanes (regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration) and ocean-going vessels.

The United States military has its own criminal justice system applicable to its members, but civilians may be charged with a federal crime for acts committed on military bases. Federal courts can also assert jurisdiction to hear cases brought against U.S. citizens based on their illegal activities in other countries. TheSixth Amendmentcalls for trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Within the federal court system, Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies which federal court may hear a particular criminal case:

Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.

In Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912) although none of the defendants had entered the District of Columbia as part of their conspiracy to defraud the United States, they were convicted because one co-conspirator had committed overt acts in Columbia. So conspiracy is a continuing offense committed in all the districts where a co-conspirator acts on the agreement.

For a federal court to have jurisdiction, the crime to be prosecuted must either have been created pursuant to an express or implied constitutional grant of authority, or must have been committed in an area owned by or under the exclusive control of the federal government.

Examples of crimes that are based on constitutional grants of authority include tax evasion; possessing illegal substances, and conspiring to violate civil rights. Courts have given a particularly broad interpretation to the Commerce Clause power, permitting Congress to make a federal crime of many common law crimes such as kidnapping or murder if state lines are crossed during commission of the crime, and such as embezzlement and blackmail using instrumentalities of commerce such as telephone lines or the U.S. mail. 

Examples of crimes that are based on areas owned by or under the exclusive control of the federal government include crimes committed in the District of Columbia, in U.S. Territories, in U.S. National Parks, in federal courthouses and federal prisons, and aboard airplanes (regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration) and ocean-going vessels.

The United States military has its own criminal justice system applicable to its members, but civilians may be charged with a federal crime for acts committed on military bases. Federal courts can also assert jurisdiction to hear cases brought against U.S. citizens based on their illegal activities in other countries.

The Sixth Amendment calls for trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Within the federal court system, Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies which federal court may hear a particular criminal case:

Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses,and theprompt administration of justice.

Problems

This system works well when there is a clear line of demarcation between the two state jurisdictions, or between a state and federal jurisdictions, and prosecutions may be initiated in the appropriate court. But laws and rules are not always so clear.

Concurrent jurisdiction

Some crimes have national significance and, to reflect the public interest, their investigation and prosecution will fall to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or the Department of Justice. This creates tensions between the two systems because the individual states in which aspects of the criminal activity have taken place may wish to assert jurisdiction over that part, whereas the federal authorities will wish to consolidate the wrongdoing across several states into a single trial.
One significant result of the concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts (and in some cases between different state courts) is that an individual who violates both state and federal law, or the laws of multiple states, can be separately charged and tried in each jurisdiction. Thus, a resident of Virginia who defrauds a Florida resident through the mail may be tried in Virginia state court and in a Florida state court, and in a federal court in either Florida or Virginia. A famous example of dual state and federal sovereignty is the Rodney King case. Police officers who beat motorist Rodney King were acquitted of assault charges in the California state court, but were convicted of violating King's civil rights - based on the same events - in a federal court in California.

THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

In the British political system, almost all legislation is proposed by the Government and much of it comes from promises made in the manifesto of the relevant political party at the last election. At the beginning of each annual session of the Parliament, the main Bills to be considered are announced by the Queen in a speech opening that year's session of Parliament.

All legislation has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

In each House of Parliament, a proposed piece of legislation - called a Bill - goes through the following stages:

• First Reading - the Bill is introduced with simply a reading by a Minister of the long title of the Bill
• Second Reading - the general principles of the Bill are debated by all the members of the House and a formal vote is taken
• Committee Stage - each clause and schedule of the Bill, plus amendments to them and any new clauses or schedules, is examined in detail, in the Commons by a small, specially chosen group of members meeting as Public Bill Committee or in the Lords by the members as a whole on the floor of the House
• Report Stage - the changes made to the Bill in the Committee are reported to and debated by the whole House which is invited to consider the Bill as a whole, approve the changes by the Committee, and consider any further proposed changes that might be suggested
• Third Reading - the final version of the Bill is considered by the whole House in a short debate (in the Commons without the facility for further amendments)
• Royal Assent - the Crown gives assent to the Bill which then becomes an Act, the provisions becoming law either immediately or at a date specified in the Act or at a date specified by what is called a Commencement Order

Several points are worth noting about the legislative process:

• Under normal circumstances, all these stages must be completed in both Houses in one session of Parliament; otherwise the process must begin all over again.
• Debates on most Bills are timetabled through a programme motion (when Government and Opposition agree) or an allocation of time motion which is popularly known as a 'guillotine' motion (when Government and Opposition do not agree).
• As well as almost all legislation coming from the Government, almost all successful amendments originate from the Government.
• The House of Lords has much more limited legislative powers than the House of Commons. Money Bills can only be initiated in the Commons and the Lords can only reject legislation from the Commons for one year. Furthermore there is a convention - called the Salisbury Convention - that the Lords does not block legislation in fulfillment of the election manifesto of the elected Government.

POLITICAL PARTIES

The idea of political parties first took form in Britain and the Conservative Party claims to be the oldest political party in the world. Political parties began to form during the English civil wars of the 1640s and 1650s. First, there were Royalists and Parliamentarians; then Tories and Whigs. Whereas the Whigs wanted to curtail the power of the monarch, the Tories - today the Conservatives - were seen as the patriotic party.

Today there are four major political parties in the British parliamentary system:

• The Conservative Party (frequently called the Tories) - the centre-Right party, currently led by David Cameron, which since 2010 has been in Government either in coalition (2010-2015) or alone (since 2015)
• The Labour Party - the centre-Left party, led by Ed Miliband until May 2015, which was last in Government from 1997 to 2010
• The Scottish National Party - the party supporting Scottish independence, which is led by Nicola Sturgeon
• The Liberal Democrat Party (known as the Lib Dems) - the centrist, libertarian party, led by Nick Clegg until May 2015, which was the junior member of the Coalition Government of 2010-2015

In recent years, Britain has seen the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) led by Nigel Farage until May 2015, which was formed in 1993 but achieved some spectacular performances in local and European elections May 2014. In the general elwection of May 2015, it won 12.6% of the vote but only one seat at Westminster.

In addition to these five main parties, there are some much smaller UK parties (notably the Green Party) and some parties which operate specifically in Wales (Plaid Cymru) or Northern Ireland (such as Sinn Fein for the nationalists and the Democratic Unionist Party for the loyalists).

Each political party chooses its leader in a different way, but all involve all the Members of Parliament of the party and all the individual members of that party. By convention, the leader of the political party with the largest number of members in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minster (formally at the invitation of the Queen).

Political parties are an all-important feature of the British political system because:

• The three main UK political parties in the UK have existed for a century or more and have a strong and stable 'brand image'.
• It is virtually impossible for someone to be elected to the House of Commons without being a member of an established political party.
• All political parties strongly 'whip' their elected members which means that, on the vast majority of issues, Members of Parliament of the same party vote as a 'block'.

Having said this, the influence of the three main UK political parties is not as dominant as it was in the 1940s and 1950s because:

• The three parties have smaller memberships than they did, since voters are much less inclined to join a political party.
• The three parties secure a lower overall percentage of the total vote, since smaller parties between them now take a growing share of the vote.
• Voters are much less 'tribal', not supporting the same party at every election, and much more likely to 'float, voting for different parties at successive elections.
• The ideological differences between the parties are less than they were, with the parties adopting more 'pragmatic' positions on many issues.

In the past, class was a major determinant of voting intention in British politics, with most working class electors voting Labour and most middle class electors voting Conservative. These days, class is much less important because:

• Working class numbers have shrunk and now represent only 43% of the electorate.
• Except at the extremes of wealth, lifestyles are more similar.
• Class does not determine voting intention so much as values, trust, competence and (in Scotland) nationalism).

In the British political system, there is a broad consensus between the major parties on:

• the rule of law
• the free market economy
• the National Health Service (NHS)
• UK membership of European Union and NATO

The main differences between the political parties concern:

• how to tackle poverty and inequality
• the levels and forms of taxation
• the extent of state intervention in the economy
• the balance between collective rights and individual rights
• the UK's relationship to the European Union

THE U.K. GOVERNMENT

All Government Ministers have to be a member of either the House of Commons (most of them) or the House of Lords (the remainder of them) and every Government Department will have at least one Minister in the Lords, so that the Department can speak in either House as necessary. The number of Ministers varies from administration to administration, but typically there will be around 120, the 20 or so most senior being Cabinet Ministers. The Ministerial and Other Salaries Act, passed in 1975, limits prime ministers to 109 ministerial salaries being paid at any one time with a maximum of 95 ministers in the House of Commons.

Historically most British governments have been composed of ministers from a single political party which had an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons and the 'first-past-the-post' (FPTP) electoral system greatly facilitates and indeed promotes this outcome. However, occasionally there have been minority governments or coalition governments.

For five years, the UK had its first coalition government in 65 years when, in May 2010, the Conservatives went into coalition with the Liberal Democrats because in the General Election they did not secure a majority of the seats. In this coalition, the Lib Dems had 17 ministers led by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

However, at the General Election of May 2015, the Conservative Party won an overall majority and the normal arrangement resumed of all Ministers coming from the same party.

The Prime Minister

The UK does not have a President. Constitutionally the head of state is the monarch who is a hereditary member of the Royal Family. However, the monarch has very few formal powers and stays above party politics. He or she receives a weekly oral report from the Prime Minister, a tradition which began with King George I in 1714 because this German had struggled to follow the English deliberations of his Cabinet.

Therefore, in practice, the most important person in the British political system is the Prime Minister. The first modern Prime Minister was Sir Robert Walpole who served from 1721-1742, so the current PM - David Cameron - is the 53rd (and, on first taking office, the youngest since 1812, a few months younger than when Tony Blair became PM in 1997). In theory, the Prime Minister simply choses the ministers who run Government departments and chairs the Cabinet - the collection of the most senior of those Ministers. In practice, however, the Prime Minister is a very powerful figure and increasingly has been behaving much like a president in other political systems, especially in the area of foreign policy.

The official residence of the Prime Minister is at 10 Downing Street in central London - a location I have visited about a dozen times - and the country residence of the Prime Minister is at Chequers in Buckinghamshire.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated criminal law.

Differences between civil law and common law systems

• The majority of civil law jurisdictions follow an inquisitorial system of adjudication, in which judges undertake an active investigation of the claims by examining the evidence and preparing reports.
• In common law systems, the trial judge, the investigators, and the prosecution are separate functions. After an investigation has been completed and charges lodged, the trial judge presides over proceedings grounded in the adversarial system of dispute resolution, where both the prosecution and the defense prepare arguments to be presented before the court. Some civil law systems have adopted adversarial procedures.

Proponents of either system tend to consider that their system defends best the rights of the innocent. There is a tendency in common law countries to believe that civil law / inquisitorial systems do not have the so-called "presumption of innocence", and do not provide the defense with adequate rights. Conversely, there is a tendency in countries with an inquisitorial system to believe that accusatorial proceedings unduly favor rich defendants who can afford large legal teams, and are very harsh on poorer defendants.

Basic rights

Currently, in all countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty, as opposed to having the defendant prove that he is innocent; any doubt is resolved in favor of the defendant. This provision, known as the presumption of innocence, may in practice operate somewhat differently in different countries. In the 46 countries which are members of the Council of Europe, this is required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Similarly, all such jurisdictions allow the defendant the right of a counsel and provide defendants that cannot afford to have their own lawyer some lawyer at the public expense (which is in some countries called a "court-appointed lawyer"). Again, the efficiency of this system depends greatly on the jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the lawyers provided to indigent defendants are often overworked or incompetent, or may not take much interest in the cases they have to defend.

United States

In the United States, there is a distinction between constitutional criminal procedure, which consists of baseline protections that the United States Constitution requires be afforded to those accused of crimes, and statutory criminal procedure, which consists of enacted rules that govern the actual conduct of a trial (such as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in federal court and similar rules in state courts). Rules of statutory criminal procedure (which are regularly revised) may afford defendants more protection than constitutional criminal procedure, but may not afford less.

In a criminal case, the government generally brings charges in one of two ways: either by accusing a suspect directly in a "bill of information" or other similar document, or by bringing evidence before a grand jury to allow that body to determine whether the case should proceed. If there is, then the defendant is indicted. In the federal system, a case must be brought before a grand jury for indictment if it is to proceed; some states, however, do not require indictment. Once charges have been brought, the case is then brought before a petit jury, or is tried by a judge if the defense requests it. The jury is selected from a pool by the prosecution and defense.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal trial, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The prosecution presents its case first, and may call witnesses and present other evidence against the defendant. After the prosecution rests, the defense may move to dismiss the case if there is insufficient evidence, or present its case and call witnesses. All witnesses may be cross-examined by the opposing side. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the defendant is not required to testify, but must answer the prosecution's questions if he or she does testify. After both sides have presented their cases and made closing arguments, the judge gives the jury legal instructions; the jury then adjourns to deliberate in private. The jury must unanimously agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

If a defendant is found guilty, sentencing follows, often at a separate hearing after the prosecution, defense, and court have developed information based on which the judge will craft a sentence. In capital cases, a separate "penalty phase" occurs, in which the jury determines whether to recommend that the death penalty should be imposed. As with the determination of guilt phase, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case, and the defendant is entitled to take the stand in his or her own defense, and may call witnesses and present evidence.

After sentencing, the defendant may appeal the ruling to a higher court. American appellate courts do not retry the case; they only examine the record of the proceedings in the lower court to determine if errors were made that require a new trial, resentencing, or a complete discharge of the defendant, as is mandated by the circumstances. The prosecution may not appeal after an acquittal, although it may appeal under limited circumstances before verdict is rendered, and may also appeal from the sentence itself. Increasingly, there is also a recognition that collateral consequences of criminal charges may result from the sentence that are not explicitly part of the sentence itself.

Criminal Investigation

Arrest warrant

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by and on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual.