The U.S. Adversary System: Analyze The Key Roles

The U.S. Adversary System · Analyze the key roles of

Analyze the key roles of the actors in the U.S. adversary system. Distinguish the role of each actor in the adversarial systems, and determine whether or not each actor brings a bias to the prosecution of a case. Provide a rationale for your response. Take a position as to whether or not you believe that “the grand jury is not an adversarial hearing” as described in this week’s reading. Support your position with a discussion on the difference between a trial hearing and a grand jury hearing, as well as on their respective merits and demerits.

Paper For Above instruction

The United States adversary system of justice is a complex and dynamic framework composed of various key actors, each playing a distinct role in the pursuit of justice. These actors include the prosecution, defense, judge, jury, and the grand jury. Understanding the roles and potential biases of each actor is essential for comprehending how the adversarial system functions and whether it maintains fairness and impartiality.

Roles of Key Actors in the U.S. Adversary System

The Prosecution is tasked with representing the state and seeking to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Their role is to present evidence and argue for conviction while adhering to ethical standards that ensure justice prevails over mere victory. The defense’s role, conversely, is to safeguard the rights of the accused, challenge the prosecution’s evidence, and present a case for acquittal. The judge acts as a neutral arbiter, ensuring that the trial proceeds according to procedural rules, and the jury functions as the trier of fact, evaluating the evidence and delivering a verdict. The grand jury, an accusatory body convened before trial, determines whether there is sufficient evidence to charge an individual with a crime.

Biases of Each Actor

The prosecution inherently has a bias towards securing a conviction, driven by the objective to uphold public safety and justice but also influenced by the desire to see cases prosecuted successfully. The defense, naturally, may exhibit bias toward the defendant’s innocence or the minimization of charges, ensuring protection against wrongful conviction. Judges and juries are intended to be neutral; however, unintentional biases can influence their decisions — judges through their interpretation of laws and rules of evidence, juries through personal beliefs and perceptions. The grand jury, by design, is likely biased in favor of the state, since their purpose is to assess whether probable cause exists to proceed to trial, not to evaluate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bias and Its Impact on the Prosecution of Cases

Bias can manifest in various forms within this system. For instance, prosecutorial discretion may lead to preferential treatment of certain defendants based on socio-economic or racial factors, or political considerations. Defense attorneys’ advocacy may sometimes lead to tunnel vision, focusing solely on defending the client at the expense of broader justice considerations. Judges and juries may be influenced by prejudicial attitudes, impeding objective judgment. However, safeguards such as rules of evidence, judicial instructions, and voir dire are intended to minimize biases and promote fairness.

The Grand Jury: A False Dichotomy?

A central debate revolves around whether the grand jury operates as an adversarial hearing. Some argue that it does not because it is primarily investigatory rather than adversarial; the prosecutor presents evidence and questions witnesses, but the accused and defense are generally not present, and the standard is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, a trial hearing is designed to be an adversarial contest between prosecution and defense, with both sides present to challenge evidence.

Supporters of this distinction assert that the grand jury’s process lacks the adversarial contest that characterizes a trial, thereby making it less susceptible to adversarial biases. Critics, however, note that the grand jury’s role in deciding whether to bring criminal charges involves prosecutorial influence, and the absence of an opposing defense perspective may lead to a one-sided evaluation that is less fair. Additionally, the secretive nature of grand jury proceedings limits transparency and accountability, raising concerns about fairness.

Merits and Demerits of Each Process

A trial hearing allows for a comprehensive adversarial contest, ensuring that both sides have the opportunity to present evidence and challenge witnesses, which promotes fairness and thoroughness. Its demerits include the potential for lengthy, costly proceedings, and the influence of prejudiced jurors. The grand jury’s merits include efficiency in screening cases for prosecutorial sufficiency, reducing the likelihood of unfounded prosecutions. However, its demerits stem from a lack of adversarial balance, potential prosecutorial overreach, and limited transparency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, each actor within the U.S. adversary system has a defined role that carries inherent biases—some conscious and some unconscious. These biases can influence case outcomes, but procedural safeguards aim to mitigate their effects. Regarding the grand jury, while it serves a vital preliminary function, it does not operate as an adversarial hearing in the traditional sense; rather, it functions as a prosecutorial screening mechanism that lacks the argumentative contest characteristic of a trial. Therefore, it is more accurate to view the grand jury as a semi-adversarial preliminary step rather than an adversarial hearing in the conventional sense.

References

- Brody, R. (2019). The U.S. Criminal Justice System: An Overview. Oxford University Press.

- Davis, J. (2018). Criminal Justice Ethics. CRC Press.

- Goodman, M. (2020). Procedural Justice in the U.S. Legal System. Harvard Law Review, 134(7), 1745-1770.

- Samaha, J. (2017). Criminal Law. Cengage Learning.

- Radelet, M., & Van Dyke, N. (2021). The Role of the Jury in American Justice. UCLA Law Review, 68(3), 560-589.

- Saks, M., & Varela, J. (2019). The Role of Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 109(4), 953-985.

- Stone, D., & Curtis, M. (2022). An Introduction to the Adversarial System. Routledge.

- Weisstub, D. N. (2019). Ethics of the Legal Profession. Springer.

- Wise, S. (2018). Procedural Fairness in Criminal Trials. American Journal of Criminal Law, 45(2), 123-147.

- Zedner, L. (2020). Pretrial Justice and the Role of the Grand Jury. Law & Society Review, 54(1), 112-134.