Criminal procedure

Criminal procedure is the formal process used to adjudicate criminal law. It is the series of legal steps taken to decide if a person is guilty of a crime. This process generally begins with a formal criminal charge against a person. At this start, the accused person may be free on bail or they may be incarcerated in jail. The entire procedure eventually leads to a final result called a verdict. This verdict results in either a conviction or an acquittal of the defendant.

Most democratic systems follow a specific rule called the presumption of innocence. This principle places the burden of proof entirely on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. This means they must exclude any reasonable hypothesis that is consistent with innocence. If any doubt remains, the law requires that it be resolved in favor of the defendant. This rule is required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a standard used by the 46 countries that are members of the Council of Europe.

Defendants possess several basic rights during these legal proceedings. First, they have the right to know the specific offense for which they were arrested or charged. Second, they have the right to appear before a judicial official within a set time after their arrest. Many jurisdictions also guarantee the right to legal counsel. If a defendant cannot afford their own lawyer, the state often provides one at public expense. These rights are intended to ensure that the legal process remains fair for everyone involved.

There is a major distinction between criminal procedure and civil procedure. Criminal actions are almost always started by the state rather than private citizens. In these cases, the party bringing the action is called the prosecution. In contrast, civil actions are usually started by individuals known as plaintiffs. The goal of a criminal case is often punishment, such as a fine to the Crown or prison time. In a civil case, the goal is usually to win damages, which is money paid to the plaintiff.

The standards of proof differ significantly between these two types of law. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must meet the very high standard of "beyond reasonable doubt." This is because the loser faces serious risks like imprisonment or even execution. In a civil action, the standard is much lower. A plaintiff must only prove their case "on the balance of probabilities." This means the court simply weighs the evidence to decide what is most likely to be true.

Legal naming conventions also change depending on the type of case and the country. In the United States, a federal criminal case against Ms. Sanchez is called United States v. Sanchez. If a state brings the case, it is called State v. Sanchez or People v. Sanchez. In the United Kingdom, the case is styled R. v. Sanchez, where R. stands for Rex or Regina. Civil cases follow a different pattern, such as Sanchez v. Smith. This shows how the identity of the parties changes the very name of the legal battle.

Two primary systems govern how these trials are conducted globally. The first is the inquisitorial system, which is common in civil law countries like France and Italy. In this system, judges take an active role by investigating claims and examining evidence. The second is the adversarial system, which is used in common law systems. Here, the judge presides over a dispute where the prosecution and defense prepare their own arguments. Both systems aim to protect the innocent, but they use different methods to achieve that goal.