Discuss the different conceptions of a trial and highlight their limitations as comprehensive definitions.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Many people see a trial as a rule-governed event involving the parties' collective search for the truth. This view assumes that what really happened can be clearly ascertained-that witnesses are capable of knowing, remembering, and describing events completely and accurately. Although this image of the trial recognizes that the opposing attorneys present only those facts that buttress their positions, it assumes that the truth will emerge from the confrontation of conflicting facts. It also assumes that judges or jurors, in weighing these facts, can "lay aside their prejudices and preconceived views regarding the case and replace such biases with a dispassionate analysis of the arguments and evidence."But this image of the trial as a rational, rule-governed event has been challenged on several grounds. Eyewitnesses are not always thorough and accurate reporters, as the legal system would like to believe. Interrogations can sometimes result in false confessions, and jurors are not particularly good at distinguishing false confessions from true confessions. Jurors may have difficulty setting aside their own experiences and prejudices. Although this image of the trial remains as an inspiring ideal, other images need to be considered as well.A second conception-that the trial is a test of credibility-acknowledges that facts and evidence are always incomplete and biased. Hence the decision makers, whether judge or jury, must not only weigh the information and evidence but also evaluate the truthfulness of the opposing sources of evidence They must focus on the way evidence, is presented, the qualifications of witnesses, and the inconsistencies between witnesses. Competence and trustworthiness of witnesses take on added importance in this image.The image of the trial as a test of credibility also has problems. Both judges and jurors can make unwarranted inferences about witnesses and attorneys on the basis of race, gender, mannerisms, or style of speech. Judges' and jurors' judgments of credibility may be based more on stereotypes, folklore, or "commonsense intuition" than on the facts.