Courtroom Jargon
What is a 'bench trial'?
A bench trial is a trial to the judge sitting without a jury. The judge is going to hear all the testimony, and then make the decisions. The bench trial is a lot easier, for example, for people who are representing themselves in court. It's much longer, it's unnerving to be in front of 12 jurors. Judges will run the trial a little bit more informally if it's a bench trial. It's just going to go a lot quicker. Whether it is advantageous given the kind of case you have depends a little bit on the judge, their background, and their leanings. But certainly, a bench trial, all other things being equal, is going to go a lot quicker and it will be a lot easier for people to navigate their way through.
What is an 'arraignment'?
An arraignment is a term that's used in the criminal trial process. When someone is arrested, they have a right to be brought to court within 48 hours. Now that can be a little longer if there's a weekend. And that first court appearance where they're formally advised of the charges against them, where they might ask for bail or to be released on their own recognizance, that process is called an arraignment. In the criminal trial it exists because once a person is arrested, the police don't decide what charges are to be filed, the prosecutor's office makes that decision. And so it may not be until you're arraigned, that you go to court for the arraignment, that you find out what the actual charges are. And there just simply isn't an equivalent to that in the civil justice process.
What is an 'appeal'?
Well, an appeal is a chance to get a reconsideration on the legal mertis of your case in front of three judges. There's no jury on appeal, but the palette court judges will not re-weigh the facts, they're not like a super-jury, they don't decide whether the jury, or the judge, for that matter, got the case wrong. They only decide whether there are legal errors ,and legal mistakes made during the trial that should cause it to be reversed. That's an appeal.
What is 'hearsay'?
Hearsay is essentially information that is supplied by a witness who's not before the court. For example if a party, let's say a plantiff in a civil case, brings in an affadavit from a friend and in the affadavit the friend describes what happens in a way that supports the plaintiff's case, that would be hearsay because the friend is not in court subject to cross-examination. Hearsay is generally inadmissible. However, it is a very complex kind of legal rule and there's forty or fifty exceptions to the rule in situations when hearsay is admissible. So it's kind of a basic bedrock of our trial process that witnesses have to come in, testify the information, and be cross-examined. And if it's being brought in not by them personally but through a document or 'here's what Joe told me/Joe saw', that would be inadmissible.
What are leading questions?
Leading questions are those that suggest the answer. The reason that they are not allowed on direct examination is because that's the examination that takes place when the side that calls a witness is asking that witness questions. They don't want the lawyer or self-represented party suggesting the answer to the witness. The answer is supposed to come from the witness, and not from the person asking the questions. An example of a leading question would be "it was six o'clock when you arrived at the house, right?" The question should be "and what time did you get to the house?"
What are 'motions'?
Motions are requests for judges to do something. There are all kinds of motions. They're generally written, although there can be oral motions if they're made during the trial. Most motions are made before trial in writing. For example, if there's a hearing set and you want the judge to postpone the hearing date because you can't be there, you would make a motion for a continuance. You might make a motion that some evidence that the other side, your adversary, wants to offer shouldn't be admitted. You'd make a motion asking the judge to exclude that piece of evidence. There's also a motion for some prejudgment which asks the judge to decide the case before the trial, based on oral documents. That's a pretty serious motion, and if the judge grants that, there wouldn't be a trial. All of those things essentially request for a judge to take some kind of action. We call them motions.
What is an 'objection'?
An 'objection' is simply a kind of motion. An 'objection' is asking the judge to exclude evidence that the other side is seeking to offer. For example, you might object that a question calls for hearsay. Or, you might object that the information sought by the question is irrelevant. So, an 'objection' is asking the judge to make a ruling that an evidence that the other side seeks to offer is inadmissible.
What does the term 'sustained' mean in a courtroom?
Sustained means that a judge has upheld an objection; so if a party objects that a question calls irrelevant information, for example, and the judge sustains the objection, then that question will not be answered and the adversary has to ask another question.
What does the term 'overruled' mean in a courtroom?
Overruled is the opposite of sustained. This means that the judge disagrees with the objection, that it is not the thing that the objection is valid and will let either a question stand if the objection was to the answer of the question or will let the answer stand if the objection was to the answer.
What is a 'hostile witness'?
A hostile witness is a party aligned with the adversary. For example, if an individual is suing an employer, and they want to call a supervisor who works for the employer as part as the plaintiff's own case, you can expect that the supervisor would be a hostile witness, because the supervisor would be aligned with the employer and not with the plaintiff. What that means, in practical terms, is that the plaintiff would get to ask leading questions. In other words, a hostile witness, even if you call that witness yourself, you're allowed to question that witness as though it were cross-examination and not direct examination.
What is a 'guilty' plea?
A guilty plea is basically an admission by the defendant that they committed the crime. Often, most criminal cases that are filed, end with guilty pleas as a result of what we call a plea bargain. This plea bargain is where the prosecutor agrees to reduce the charges or agrees to recommend a lighter sentence, in return for a plea of 'guilty'. A guilty plea ends the case, and there won't be a trial. Usually, a judge will question a defendant who wants to plead guilty, and make sure that the defendant is pleading guilty because they really are guilty, and that's not because they want to save time or protect somebody else.
What is a 'no contest' plea?
A "no contest" plea is exactly the same as a "guilty" plea in that it ends the case and has the same consequences in the criminal case. The difference between a "guilty" plea and a "no contest" plea is that a "no contest" plea cannot be offered in evidence in a civil case. So if you have, for example, a defendant who's charged with assault and battery on a particular victim, that may be charged as a crime, the victim may also sue the defendant for the injuries, as in seeking damages. If the defendant pleads "guilty" in the criminal case, the victim could offer that "guilty" plea into evidence in the civil case as evidence that the defendant is liable for damages. On the other hand if the defendant pleads "no contest" in the criminal case, that "no contest" plea would not be admissable in the civil case. So, it's a way for defendants to end criminal cases without hurting their positions in civil cases, that's the reason we have a "no contest" plea.
What is a 'not guilty' plea?
A not guilty plea is a claim by the defendant that “I didn't do it”, whatever the charged crime is. It's a term used only in criminal cases, and therefore it puts the burden on a prosecutor to prove a defendant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant in our American system of justice has an absolute right to plead not guilty and to force the prosecution to prove him guilty and doesn't have to say another word throughout the case.
What is 'reasonable doubt'?
Reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in criminal cases. It's the proposition that a jury cannot convict a defendant of a crime, unless they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Sometimes people try to quantify that as you have to be 95 percent certain or 98 percent certain, but there is no exact definition. It means that you have to be really certain that a defendant has committed a crime before they're convicted. It puts a heavy duty on the prosecution. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof we have in United States trials.
What is the 'preponderance of evidence'?
Preponderance of evidence' is a standard of proof that is used in most, but not all, civil trials. It means that the plaintiff, the party who brought the lawsuit, is not entitled to a judgement unless they convince the judge or jury by a 'prepondence of evidence' that their version of the events is correct. 'Preponderance of the evidence', a lesser version than beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in criminal cases. It probably means something like the judge or jury should be like 51% confident that the plaintiff has proved it's case before they give the verdict to the plaintiff.
What does the term 'burden of proof' mean?
Burden of proof is the degree to which the party who starts a court case has to convince a judge or jury that their case is meritorious. The burden of proof, for example, in a civil case, and most civil cases, is preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the plaintiff has to convince a judge or jury by a preponderance of the evidence, roughly 51 percent, that a defendant is legally responsible. Let's say that they breached a contract, or drove negligently. These are the typical kinds of civil cases. The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt.
