Facing a criminal trial often gets portrayed as a disorienting whirlwind in movies and television. But understanding the trajectory that unfolds more clearly lets you gear up appropriately. Breaking down key phases and court player contributions demystifies the process so you ready yourself mentally and practically for the challenging voyage ahead seeking exoneration. Trials commence with both Crown and defence lawyers providing brief high-level case summaries foreshadowing core evidence they plan to introduce and key witness testimony solicited. Think of this overview as trailers before the feature presentation. This frames the overall storyline jurors will follow along judging guilt and innocence.
Prosecution’s case goes first
As the charging party, the burden falls upon the Crown prosecution to present all exhibits plus witness accounts substantiating reasons why the accused allegedly perpetrated the criminal offense described. Over ensuing days/weeks Counsel calls investigators, technical specialists, and the complainant to recreate events using visual materials, scientific reports, documented injuries, and emotional testimony alleging the accused actions.
Cross-examination happens next
Upon conclusion of each Crown witness recounting experiences related to the accused, defence lawyers rise eliciting probing counter-questions seeking to poke holes by highlighting contradictory accounts and oversights. Masterful cross-examination intends to scramble carefully packaged direct evidence turns delivered or undermine perception reliability regarding recall fidelity, observational vantage point, biases, or other mental clarity factors jurors weigh unconsciously determining witness credibility on stands.
Accused case gets presented
brampton criminal defence law firm presents its optimal timeline, reference points, and subject matter expert witnesses after the prosecution rests its entire case. This involves supplemental civilian witnesses, alibi corroborators, competing forensic analysis conclusions, or testimony addressing justification reasons supporting accused actions. Bolstering alternative explanations through evidence combinations averting guilty acts underpins bidding to upend one-sided initial prosecution arguments.
Defence lawyers also decide if putting their clients on stands helps humanize them before juries and fill in helpful experiential details against allegations made reframing complainant testimony. If sincere, consistent, and sympathetic, accused testimony sways jurors assessing relative credibility against complainants. But, relentless cross-examination risks self-incrimination erasing all careful defence progress so far. It constitutes high-stakes gambling.
Sur-rebuttal arguments
Before both sides rest concluding evidential arguments, lawyers return briefly clarifying specific disputed points raised earlier requiring additional commentary rebutting witness pushes made by the opposing party. Fine-tuning intricate timeline nuances, highlighting witness statement embellishment caught or reinforcing key record-keeping paperwork forms the main sur-rebuttal focus keeping core defence in jurors’ minds entering deliberation.
With all proof presented via exhibit analysis and sworn witnesses in courts, lawyers crystalize why cumulative evidence does or doesn’t surpass reasonable doubt thresholds related to the accused perpetration alleged by the initial complainant according to strict legal definitions. The prosecution reminds all emotional testimony heard thus urging a guilty finding while the defence focuses upon instilling hesitancy and uncertainty across what truly transpired beyond accusations tabled lacking corroboration.
