In states that permit the death penalty, there are often two separate phases of the trial—the guilt phase and the penalty phase.  Murder is the only crime for which someone may be sentenced to death.  A murder that is eligible for the death penalty is called a capital murder. Often, there must be certain “special circumstances” that make a particular murder eligible for the death penalty.

The first part of a capital trial is the guilt phase.  In the guilt phase, the jury (or judge) determines whether the defendant is guilty of the charged crimes.  The only question the jury may consider is whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged crimes.  The jury is not permitted to consider the possible sentence in the guilt phase.

If the defendant is found guilty of a crime that leaves him eligible for the death penalty, then there is a penalty phase of trial. 

During the penalty phase, the jury often hears additional evidence to help it make a decision about whether the death penalty should be imposed. 

Different, more relaxed, rules of evidence apply during the penalty phase.  The prosecution typically presents aggravating evidence.  Aggravating evidence is that which suggests that death is the appropriate penalty. 

The defense attorney typically presents mitigating evidence.  Mitigating evidence is that which suggests the defendant does not deserve to be sentenced to death.

Factors that a jury might consider in deciding whether to impose the death penalty include:

• The circumstances of the crime
• The defendant’s mental and emotional state at the time of the crime
• Whether the defendant was legally insane or intoxicated at the time of the crime
• Whether the defendant believed the crime to be morally justified
• The defendant’s age and level of participation in the crime
• Prior felony convictions
• Other violent crimes committed by the defendant, whether he was convicted or not
• The victim’s role or participation in the murder
• Victim impact evidence (the impact of the murder on the victim’s family and friends)
• Any other extenuating circumstances
  

In California, the only two sentencing options available at the penalty phase are death or life without the possibility of parole.  Life without the possibility of parole is often called LWOP (pronounce el-wop).  A defendant sentenced to LWOP will spend the rest of his life in prison (unless his conviction is overturned).  It is considered a true life sentence.

Although it is an older movie, "Presumed Innocent," starring Harrison Ford, is educational and can be used to teach many legal lessons.  It can be effectively used as part of a legal ethics or criminal law and procedure class. 

The basic premise of the movie is that Harrison Ford's character, Rusty Sabich, is an assistant district attorney who is accused of murdering his colleague and lover.  His boss, the elected district attorney, played by Brian Dennehy, assigns Rusty to handle the investigation into Carolyn Polhemus' death (played by Greta Scacchi).  Along the way, he hides his relationship with her, destroys evidence, learns that the boss was also sleeping with her, and winds up accused of murder. 

Right away, there is a conflict of interest.  Probably the District Attorney's Office handling the investigation at all would be a conflict, especially in a smaller office like the one depicted in the movie.  Normally, such a case would be handled by the state Attorney General's Office.  Rusty has an even greater conflict than Carolyn's other colleagues because he had an illicit affair with her.  Rusty does not disclose his affair to his boss (even when the boss confides his own affair to Rusty), which creates a greater appearance of impropriety.

The movie does a good job of showing the different roles and obligations of prosecutors and defense attorneys.  The main character is a prosecutor who is charged with a crime.  The movie shows his interactions with his hired defense attorney, played by Raul Julia.  It shows advice given by the defense attorney to his client, like pleading the Fifth in the grand jury, even though his client may not want to take it.  It also explains why he should do so even though it will make him look guilty - you don't want to give the prosecution pre-trial statements to use against you.  The movie also shows strategic decisions made by the defense attorney along the way.

There is a part in the movie where the prosecutor wants to put in evidence statements that Rusty made to him.  The judge correctly rules that the the prosecutor will not be permitted to testify in the case unless he steps down as prosecutor and lets someone else take over the case.  This points to a key mistake that many books, TV shows, and movies make, which is having the attorney investigate crimes and question witnesses alone.  That's what investigators are for.  (Learn more about this in my free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.)

"Presumed Innocent" also shows the practical reality that sometimes things outside the courtroom can make all the difference in the outcome of a case.  (SPOILER ALERT)  In that case it was the defense attorney's knowledge of the trial judge's past unethical behavior that gave the defense an edge. 

The movie can be used as a good example of how to show probable cause to get a search warrant.  In the movie, the police had Rusty's fingerprints on a glass in Carolyn's apartment, phone records showed many calls between Rusty and Carolyn, including one call the night of the murder, Rusty's blood type matched semen found inside the victim (the book and movie were pre-DNA), and unknown carpet fibers were found in the victim's apartment. 

NOTE, however, that the police in the movie choose not to search for a murder weapon.  In reality, the police will always search for a murder weapon at the home of their primary suspect.  (The reason this is done in the movie is because a twist at the end revolves around discovery of the murder weapon.)

Finally, there are two incidents in the movie where Rusty destroys evidence.  That is obviously a big no-no -- for an attorney or anyone else. 

This is one of the few examples of a movie that gets most of the legal stuff right.  (It would probably be my second choice of an accurate legal film after My Cousin Vinny.)  It is also a compelling story that stands up to the test of time.  The book upon which the movie is based, also called "Presumed Innocent" by Scott Turrow, is excellent as well.  (Click below to check out the movies or book.)

Sign up to receive my free ebook revealing theTop 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

A recent Grey's Anatomy episode, "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word" (season 10, episode 9), made it clear that the show should stick to medicine and stay out of the courtroom.  Or at least hire a legal consultant when a storyline turns legal.

In the episode, Calley went to trial in a medical malpractice case.  The mistakes throughout the episode were many and cringeworthy. 

To start with, a period of four months supposedly passed between the time of the act of malpractice (a hip replacement surgery that ended with both legs amputated from an Olympic snowboarded) to the time of trial.  Four months!  Anyone who has had even the slightest interaction with America's court systems knows that nothing moves that quickly.  Least of all a civil lawsuit involving detailed medical information that goes to a jury trial.  Four years would be slightly more realistic.

But, I understand there are more important time needs in the story, so I'll move on.  An even more flagrant problem, and one that had no requirement in teh story, was the confusion between a civil lawsuit, which this was, and a criminal prosecution, which this wasn't.  The writers do not seem to understand something very basic that most Americans should know about their legal system.

There are two completely separate and different legal systems in our country.  Civil cases are where people (or corporations or governments) sue other people (or corporations or governments) for some wrong.  If the person suing (plaintiff) wins, they are usually awarded money.

Criminal cases are where the government (and only the government), whether state, city, or federal, charges someone with a crime.  If the government wins, the defendant might be fined, and/or be sent to jail or prison, or in some cases even be put to death.

The terms used in each of these two systems are often different.  And this is where Grey's Anatomy got so embarrassingly off-track.  After the plaintiff's attorney finished questioning a witness, he exclaimed, "The prosecution rests."  Since this was a civil lawsuit, there was no "prosecution."  There was only a plaintiff. 

SPOILER ALERT  At the end, when the verdict was read, the jury foreperson announced, "Not guilty."  Again, since this was a civil suit, no one could be found guilty or not guilty.  Those terms are only used when someone has been charged with a crime.

There were several more minor errors throughout the show.  Most of these problems could have been easily corrected by having a legal consultant read through the script and/or be present for filming. 

The result of so many basic and easily-fixable errors was that the show looked poorly researched and inauthentic.  If their medical errors are as bad as their legal ones, I have to seriously question this show's credibility.  Not that a medical or legal show has to bee 100% accurate, but such basic mistakes can seriously undermine the show.

To avoid similar mistakes, get your free writer's guide revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

"Death in the City of Light" is a true crime book by David King about a serial killer who murdered dozens of people in Nazi-occupied Paris, France during World War II. 

The crimes committed by the accused serial killer and physician, Dr. Marcel Petiot, were truly horrible.  In addition to being gruesome, his crimes targeted some of the most vulnerable people during World War II - those who wanted to escape the Gestapo. 

Dr. Petiot was seen by those who knew him alternately as a charming humanitarian or a creep.  Dr. Petiot made a reputation for himself by providing free services to the poor.  He was also known to service drug users and was investigated more than once for improperly proscribing medication to addicts.

Petiot effectively used the Nazi occupation of Paris and the French Resistance movement to recruit new victims, prevent too many questions from being asked, and cover his crimes.  Once he is discovered and captured, the central question of his trial becomes whether his murders were committed for the Gestapo, the Resistance, or himself.

The book loses a lot of steam when the trial starts about halfway through.  Normally I'm fascinated by how a foreign country's criminal justice system and trial process compares to the United States, but this one got too bogged down in details.  Also, the author made a point of focusing on the defendant's "witty" remarks in court and the trial audience's delight in him, which was hard to take after learning of all the disgusting things he had done. 

More interesting were some of the procedures used in the French criminal court which were very different from a U.S. criminal trial.  For example, the first part of the trial was basically dedicated to an interrogation of the defendant by the trial judge and lawyers.  By contrast, in the U.S., we have the Fifth Amendment, which protects criminal defendants from ever having to speak in a criminal trial and even prevents the lawyers from commenting on his failure to testify.

Also, several of the victims in the French criminal trial were represented by civil attorneys who actively participated in the trial.  They questioned witnesses and presented evidence.  In the U.S. court system, criminal and civil trials are completely separate.

One of the things I was most struck by was the apparent lack of order in questioning and argument during the French trial.  The defendant and lawyers would speak up, question witnesses, and make arguments seemingly without structure or order.  If this is really the way of a French criminal trial, it is hard to imagine how anything could get accomplished with such a system.  Especially with so many lawyers involved and given lawyers' love of hearing themselves talk!

As far as foreign true crime serial killer books go, I preferred "The Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston.

Check out my review of "The Monster of Florence" here.

Overall, however, the story underlying "Death in the City of Light" is simply too disturbing and intriguing to ignore. 

(Click the images or links above to check out the books for yourself.)

Also, get your free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

It is common advice given to new lawyers in trial:  Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.  The idea is that you don't want to be surprised by a witness and have someone (intentionally or unintentionally) torpedo your case from the witness stand.

The following legendary story of grandma going to court illustrates this concept in a funny and unexpected way:

(Unfortunately, this story isn't true.  http://www.snopes.com/legal/grandmacourt.asp.)

Of course, in real life, attorneys are not usually afraid of the witness revealing embarrassing information about them, but are concerned the witness will say something unexpected about the evidence that effectively ruins the attorney's case.  This can happen as a result of lack of proper preparation.  Or, in criminal cases, it can happen because of little or no opportunity to talk to the witness before trial.

A victim or witness is not required to speak to or cooperate with the attorneys on either side of a criminal case.  Unlike in a civil case, there are usually no depositions or interrogatories, or other opportunities to question a witness before trial.  The witness may have been questioned to some degree during a grand jury proceeding or preliminary hearing.  But often a criminal attorney has to rely on statements the victim or witness previously made to police or others. 

That is why, in the field of criminal law, it is a myth to suggest that a lawyer should never ask a question to which she does not know the answer.

For an example of why an attorney should not ask a question without first knowing the answer, check out the Academy Award winning movie "Anatomy of a Murder" with George C. Scott and Jimmy Stewart:

Sign up for your free ebook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

What is required to prove a criminal defendant is legally insane?  Each state has its own laws and rules about its legal definition of insanity, but there are some general concepts that can be used to understand what it means to be legally insane.  It is important to note that the insanity defense is rarely used and has even been abolished in some states.

Insanity is generally considered an "excuse" to committing a crime.  An excuse defense is where, even though the defendant engaged in criminal conduct, he is excused from legal responsibility because of some condition in the defendant.  

Insanity is also considered to be an "affirmative defense."  An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant must affirmatively assert the defense and produce some evidence supporting it.  For some affirmative defenses in some states, the defendant also has the burden of proving the defense is true.  

Defendants are generally presumed to be sane, so a prosecutor does not need to prove the defendant was sane unless the defendant puts his sanity into question.  Once it is put into question, either the prosecution must prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant must prove he was insane by a preponderance of the evidence.

In some states the defendant must enter a special plea, such as not guilty by reason of insanity. Some states have a separate sanity phase where the jury determines the defendant's sanity after it has decided he committed the charged crime.

The focus of determining a defendant's sanity is his mental condition at the time of the crime.  (This is one way the test for insanity is different than the test for competence to stand trial.  For a discussion of the differences between sanity and competency, check out this prior post.)

To be found insane, the defendant must show that he suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the crime.  Generally, the mental disease or defect may be permanent or temporary.

The M'Naghten Test

The defendant's mental condition must satisfy the legal standard for insanity.  The M'Naghten test is traditionally the most commonly used  test to determine insanity.  Under the M'Naghten test, a person is considered legally insane if: 

1.  at the time of the crime
2.  he suffered from a defect of reason that resulted in him either
     a.  not knowing the nature and quality of the act he performed, or
     b.  not knowing his act was wrong.

A defendant knows the nature of his act if he knows what act he is performing.  He knows the quality of his act if he understands the consequences that flow from his act.

For example, a woman is charged with murdering her baby by drowning.  To prove she was legally insane, she must prove that because of a defect of reason, she either did not know she was holding her baby's head underwater, or did not know that holding the baby's head underwater would result in him drowning.

Alternately, the defendant can show she did not know that her act was wrong.  The term "wrong" in this context may mean either legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on the state.

In the above example, if the woman knew she was holding her baby's head underwater and understood this would cause the baby to drown, but she believed she must do so to rid him of the devil, she would assert that she did not know her act was wrong.  This would be an example of a moral wrong.

Insane Delusions

If someone suffers from delusions because of a defect of reason, they may be able to assert the insanity defense, depending on the nature of the delusion.  If the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would have justified the defendant's acts, he could assert the insanity defense.  If, however, the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would not have justified the defendant's acts, he may not be considered insane.

For example, the defendant was delusional and believed the victim was holding a gun when in fact e was holding a pen.  The victim pointed the pen at the defendant, who believed he was about to be shot.  The defendant pulled out a gun and shot the victim.  The defendant could assert the insanity defense because, had the victim really pointed a gun at him, he would have been justified in shooting the victim in self-defense.

However, if the defendant's delusion was that the victim tricked him out of his money, and he shot the victim in revenge, he would not be considered legally insane because, even if his belief was true, tricking someone out of their money does not justify shooting them.

Irresistible Impulse Test

The irresistible impulse test is sometimes used in conjunction with the M'Naghten test.  Under this test, the defendant must have a defect of the mind that makes it impossible for him to control his actions.

It is not sufficient to meet this test if someone is overcome by anger, jealousy, or other strong emotions.  (Such passion may be sufficient to reduce a killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter, but it cannot be a complete defense.)

Model Penal Code Test

Another test for insanity is set out by the Model Penal Code.  Under this test a person is considered insane if, because of a mental disease or defect, the person did not have the capacity to:
1.  understand the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or 
2.  to conform his conduct to the law.

This is sometimes called the "policeman at the elbow test."  In other words, if the person would have committed the act even if there had been a police officer at her elbow watching her, she is considered unable to have understood the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law.

A defendant's sanity may be proven by either medical professionals or by lay (non-expert) witnesses.  Lay witnesses may testify about the defendant's behavior around the time of the crime to help the jury determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the crime.

To understand the differences between insanity and competency to stand trial, click here.

Claim your free E-book on The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.

When you are in the criminal justice system or you are writing about the criminal justice system, it is helpful to know what stage of the process you are in.  Different things happen at different stages, and you should know where you are at any given time.

I have broken down the criminal justice system into 6 basic stages.  I will give a brief synopsis of each stage here.  I will go into each stage in greater detail in future posts.

1.  Crime Stage - This is where the crime occurs.  Crimes may be instantaneous, like a shooting, or may be ongoing, like a sophisticated ponzi scheme.

2.  Investigation Stage - This can occur simultaneously with an ongoing crime.  In most cases, the investigation phase happens after the crime has been committed.  An arrest usually happens during either the investigation phase or charging stage.

3.  Charging Stage - After an investigation is complete, a prosecutor must decide whether to bring charges, who to charge, and what crimes to charge.  This is an important step because it turns a suspect into a formally charged defendant and triggers certain constitutional rights.

4.  Pre-Trial Stage - Once a defendant is charged, the pre-trial stage begins.  The defense attorney will review the prosecution's evidence and may bring motions, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion to suppress evidence.  Witnesses are interviewed and prepared for trial.

5.  Trial Stage - This is where the fun happens.  Most trials are in front of juries, although a judge can hear trials too.  It's up to the defendant.  The prosecution has the burden of proof and will try to introduce evidence to prove the defendant guilty.  The defense need not introduce any evidence.

6.  Post-Trial Stage - After a defendant has been convicted at trial, there are a slew of things that can happen.  Sentencing happens in every case.  The defendant may also bring a new trial motion.  The defendant can appeal, file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or petition for clemency or a pardon.

Each of these phases has its own unique challenges, goals, rules, and rights.  I will develop each in more detail in future posts. 

A fictional crime story may take place in one, some, or all of these stages.  Whichever stages your story takes place in, it's critical to understand the rules and purposes of those stages.  I hope you will find this to be a helpful guide on your journey.

In the meantime, make sure to sign up for the FREE eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.