Criminal Court -- What goes on?

Criminal Court is similar to what goes on in Law and Order, but much, much less dramatized.

Criminal court is, yes, question and answer. You get a witness on the stand, you establish who they are, and then you ask them questions relevant to the case. You can produce evidence for the witness to examine (and that's generally the only way the jury sees the evidence, when you show it to a witness). After you've finished questioning the witness, which can last hours or even DAYS if it's particularly detailed, the other side gets to question the witness.

Trials involve a lot of prep work. If you watch Law and Order, pay attention to the date when the crime occurs, and the date when the trial occurs. It may be as few a ten to fifteen days, or as long as six months. Criminal cases are usually in court fairly quickly, due to constitutional provisions that require a "speedy trial", although litigation and civil cases can drag on for years without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Most testimony is very dry, very boring, expert testimony especially. Eyewitness accounts are usually a bit more interesting, but if the prosecutor is not very smart, the testimony can be dragged out unnecessarily and become boring quickly ("What color was his hair? Was it spiky or smooth? What was he wearing? What condition was it in? Was it dirty?").

Most prosecutors get involved once the police investigation has run its course. After arrest, the suspect is arraigned (much like you see in the show, though bail is generally not "haggled"), the case is put before a grand jury, and an indictment is handed down. The arraignment is for the judge to determine whether or not the prosecution has enough evidence to proceed, and is usually a rubber-stamp. The grand jury is more rigorous, but does not involve any kind of defense. The purpose is still to see if the prosecution can provide enough evidence to support the charges. The grand jury can change the charges (for example, changing murder one to manslaughter if necessary).

After the indictment, witnesses are usually prepped individually. The lawyer and witness will generally work out a "script" and practice it again and again, then try to anticipate what the other side will ask and prepare the witness for the cross-examination. This is not ethically incorrect, and all lawyers do it.

During the actual trial, the witness is called, asked to give testimony (on evidence, if necessary), then "tendered" to the other side for cross-examination. Objections are pretty much what you see in Law and Order, although there are many reasons for objections, and it is considered proper to stand when addressing the court (or judge) for whatever reason. Lawyers give opening statements about what they think the evidence will prove, and closing summations that basically sum up the case (generally, the longer the trial, the longer the alloted time for summation).

This is all from a third-person perspective, by the way. I'm not a lawyer, but I've watched trials and studied court records, so...yeah. I'm sure we have a few lawyers out there that can correct me where I'm wrong or fill in what I've left out.

Speaking as a former witness/plaintiff (for a sexual expoitation case) and a law student (both in Canada) I have some stuff to add in:

Not all trials occur quickly, with the one I was involved in, a year after the crime was reported to police the preliminary inquiry (arraignment) occured where the prosecutor presented all the evidence to the judge including having witnesses testify. What the judge decides here is that "if all the evidence I've been presented with is true, is it possible to find the defendant guilty?". If he decides yes then there is a trial.
Preliminary hearings don't always occur, in Canada, it depends on how serious the crime was, and wether or not the defendant waives his right to one.

After the preliminary hearing it was another 6 months before the actual trial. The Crown we had for the preliminary hearing was busy with a murder trial so there was a different Crown involved (I didn't meet either until the day of the trial - they had reviewed my police statement).

With the actual trial, there isn't always a jury, it again depends on the seriousness of the crime and is often up to the defendant if he would like one. Trials can last quite a long time, the one I was involved with was a week and a half and that was fairly short.

If you have any questions about what it was like to be a witness or anything else, please PM me.

I'm only in my 6th week of law school, so I don't claim to be a full on expert about legal issues or anything.