The American legal system differs from other legal systems in the world. For understanding its structure and order, it may be useful to have insight into the legal proceedings. This paper aims to discuss the procedure and function of the jury trial. It will cover its primary stages, describe the importance of choosing the right way to deliver the speech, and mention the courtroom’s contents. Some observations concerning the process, court personnel, and the atmosphere prevailing in the courtroom will also be made.
The jury trial is a highly structured and orderly process that plays a crucial role in the American legal system. It consists of several steps: choosing a jury, opening statements, witness testimony and cross-examination, closing arguments, jury instruction, jury deliberation, and verdict. This paper will cover the first few steps of the process. The recording of the Stradapede’s case, provided by the United States Court, gives the general idea of the procedure (“Stragapede v. City of Evanston”). In the opening statement, the attorney provides a brief account of the case in hand. This step appears to be significant because it gives the first impression of the case. It is noteworthy that the opening statement has its own rules and order, which is to be restored. For instance, the lawyer’s speech should not be excessively long, as it gives an outline of the case. Moreover, no arguments should be present in this part of the process.
The first thing that attracts one’s attention is the way the defense attorney delivers his speech. One should notice the power of conviction and eloquence, with which he gives the opening statement (“Stragapede v. City of Evanston,” 00:29:45 – 00:44:00). His speech is not a monotonous one but gets the attention of everyone present in the courtroom. It has a clear question and answer structure: the defense lawyer poses the question “Why?” several times during his speech and responds it himself (“Stragapede v. City of Evanston,” 00:34:49). This way of giving an opening statement appears to be far more intriguing and impressive than a simple monologue. Moreover, the attorney provides documents to back up his comments and makes several references, which makes his speech even more credible (“Stragapede v. City of Evanston,” 00:31:31). The repetitions of some of the crucial statements are also used to enhance the impact. These expressive means seem to be a powerful tool in convincing the listeners and exerting a strong influence.
During the witness testimony, the prosecuting lawyer conducts the direct examination of one of the witnesses. In this stage of the procedure, evidence can be introduced by the prosecutor. In the process of the examination, the testifier provides short answers to the attorney’s questions (“Stragapede v. City of Evanston,” 00:44:24-01:10:59). The witness is not expected to give detailed answers but says “yes” or “no.” It is worth noting that the questions may be controversial and complicated. One of the difficulties answering them lies in the formulation, as it may be categorical. The testifier is supposed to respond immediately and without hesitation, which also puts pressure on them. Sometimes questions may be unclear to the testifier, and, in this case, they are allowed to ask to repeat them. Taking into consideration all the details of the witness testimony, the general atmosphere seems to be strained.
One can observe that the courtroom is equipped with everything which is needed during the trial. It can be seen from the video that audiovisual technology, such as monitors and microphones, is also present in the courtroom to allow everyone present to see exhibits and hear speakers. This equipment appears to be useful as it facilitates the process and enables the implementation of modern technologies in the process of a jury trial.
Judging from the fragment of the recorded case, the proceeding in question serves justice. In the beginning, the judge reads the rules, which are to be followed, aloud (“Stragapede v. City of Evanston,” 00:00:10-00:10:59). The prescribed order seems to be kept, all the formalities observed. Furthermore, each step of the proceeding, responses, all the statements were recorded in written form. This documentation of the process provides further evidence that the order was preserved, and the rules were not disregarded. It is worth mentioning that, in the first place, the floor was given to the prosecutor party, as the order prescribes, and then to the defense party. It is also apparent that the rules of conduct during the jury trial were not violated. It seems to make the whole process of the jury trial fair and equal for all parties.
In conclusion, the recorded process of the jury trial seems to be useful for understanding the American legal system. It allows one to get insight into the structure and order of legal proceedings in the USA and learn more about its distinctive features. In addition, this recording illustrates how the American judicial system works “from the inside” and shows which role each stage and component of the process plays in the trial procedure.