Transcript How a trial proceeds • Federal vs. state charges – If the activity is specifically federal (exampleinterstate commerce, spying, treason, etc.) then governed.

How a trial proceeds
• Federal vs. state charges
– If the activity is specifically federal (exampleinterstate commerce, spying, treason, etc.) then
governed by federal law
– If not outlined in constitution, federal courts have
no jurisdiction, up to the state systems (CAN break
both)
– It all starts by filing the charges…
Civil vs. Criminal Charges
• Civil cases are between two parties that have similar rights,
the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff must (usually)
prove that their version of the facts is more correct than
the defendant’s “by a preponderance of the evidence,”
which means “more likely than not.” In a civil case, both
parties must provide to the other side (when requested)
any possessed relevant information.
• Criminal cases involve “society,” i.e. the state (local to
federal) claiming that the defendant has engaged in some
behavior so egregious that society itself will not tolerate it.
The state must prove their facts “beyond a reasonable
doubt,” a burden of proof much higher than the civil
standard. In a criminal action the state must provide the
defense with all information, but the defense has no
obligation to reciprocate
Rules for Evidence
• Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a
second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the
first person had no direct experience (generally not allowed)
• 401 – Definition of “Relevant Evidence”.
This rule says basically that any evidence admitted at trial must be
relevant and to be relevant, it must have the tendency to make the
existence of a fact more or less probable.
• 403 – Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice,
Confusion, or Waste of Time.
This rule allows the exclusion of relevant evidence if its value is
outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice, undue delay, waste of
time, or unnecessary duplication of evidence already presented.
• 602 – Lack of Personal Knowledge. This rule says that a witness can
testify only to what she has personal knowledge of, and that foundation
of that knowledge has been adequately shown through testimony by that
witness or another witness.
Witnesses
• All information is brought before the jury through the testimony of
witnesses. A witness is a person, with knowledge, who is called by a
party, sworn to tell the truth, and through questioning relays that
information to the jury
• Lay witnesses are allowed to testify to information of which they have
personal knowledge. Lay witnesses are generally precluded from
testifying in the form of an opinion unless the information is “(a)
rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and (b) helpful to a
clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in
issue
• An expert witness is a person who by virtue of education, experience,
skill, or training has knowledge of a specific subject beyond that of a
normal person. Expert witnesses may give opinions about evidence
within their scope of expertise. An expert has “scientific, technical, or
other specialized knowledge” to assist the fact-finder. Once qualified by
the Court, the expert may give opinion testimony if “(1) the testimony is
based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of
reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”
Investigation
• Criminal prosecutions typically begin with an
investigation conducted by an executive investigative
agency. In a federal case, the investigative agency is
generally the FBI or an executive agency, such as the
EPA. In a state prosecution, the investigative agency
is normally the state or local police.
• During the investigation, the agency will gather
evidence by interviewing witness, reviewing records,
and conducting forensic testing. If the investigative
agency determines that sufficient evidence exists of
criminal activity, the agency will refer the matter to
the appropriate prosecutor - United States
Department of Justice or the state, county, or local
prosecutor’s office.
Pre-trial
• In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a
lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil
procedure, can obtain evidence from the opposing party
by means of discovery devices including requests for
answers to interrogatories, requests for production of
documents, requests for admissions and depositions.
Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using
subpoenas. When discovery requests are objected to, the
requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by
filing a motion to compel discovery
• In a criminal case, defense can file motions to compel,
forcing the state to supply specific information pertinent
to the case, but the state cannot force defendant to supply
information
Trial
• Jury Selection (voir dire) picks jury members from
community, each side can ask questions and object within
limits
• Plaintiff makes case first, presenting witnesses to introduce
information (info can also be entered as briefs or displays)
• Defense makes it’s case after the plaintiff rests
• Witnesses are cross-examined (from opposing side, idea is
to get favorable facts from witness or to call their credibility
into question, lessening the weight of their testimony). i.e.
opposing lawyer is out to trick and discredit the witness,
this can be a most unpleasant experience.
The Libby criminal case
• Vermiculite Mine in NW Montana town of Libby,
contained asbestosform amphiboles
• BUT, these amphiboles characterized as winchite
and richterite – NOT one of the 6 regulated asbestos
materials
• Criminal charges brought against executives of
company that owned the mine – W.R. Grace.
• They had already settled civil penalties by paying
into asbestos worker fund
• Trial in 2009 – all defendants found not guilty
VAG Mine suits
• US Dept. of Justice settlement in 2009 (09-659) reached settlement with
company called G-I
• Under the settlement, G-I will take immediate steps at the VAG Site by
constructing fencing, gates and road barriers to restrict public access;
providing onsite surveillance and securing the mill buildings. They will
also monitor air emissions from the piles; conduct dust suppression, if
necessary, and provide support to EPA and Vermont for future sampling
and monitoring. These tasks will take place over eight years, at a cost of
up to $7.75 million. The need for dust suppression will depend on the air
monitoring results. G-I will also reimburse the federal and state
governments for past and future cleanup costs at the VAG Site and
related off-site contamination. G-I, now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, will
reimburse a portion of EPA and Vermont’s cleanup costs up to 8.6
percent of $300 million. Finally, G-I will pay $850,000 for damages to
local wetlands and waterways contaminated by the site.
• Also a civil case (Prive v. VAG and Howard Manosh)