A criminal trial in the United States follows a set sequence: jury selection, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, jury instructions, deliberations, and a verdict. Understanding how a criminal trial works starts with one principle that governs every stage — the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense is never required to prove innocence.
Before going further, a boundary worth naming: most criminal cases never reach trial at all. An estimated 90 to 95 percent of federal and state cases resolve through plea bargains, where the defendant pleads guilty (often to a reduced charge) in exchange for a lighter sentence recommendation.1Bureau of Justice Assistance. Plea and Charge Bargaining Research Summary Accepting a plea means giving up the right to trial, and once the judge accepts the guilty plea, it functions the same as a conviction. Everything below applies to the small fraction of cases that actually proceed to trial.
Jury Trial or Bench Trial
The first decision is who will decide the case. For any serious offense, the defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. That right can be waived in favor of a bench trial, where a judge alone hears the evidence and returns the verdict. In federal court, waiving a jury requires three things: the defendant must make the waiver in writing, the prosecution must consent, and the judge must approve.2Legal Information Institute. Fed. R. Crim. P. 23 – Jury or Nonjury Trial The prosecution doesn’t have to explain a refusal, and courts rarely second-guess it.
Defendants sometimes prefer a bench trial when the case turns on complex legal questions or involves facts that might inflame a jury. When the jury right is exercised, a federal jury consists of 12 people. The parties can agree in writing to a smaller jury, and if a juror must be excused for good cause after deliberations begin, the court can allow 11 jurors to return a verdict.2Legal Information Institute. Fed. R. Crim. P. 23 – Jury or Nonjury Trial
Jury Selection
A pool of potential jurors is brought into the courtroom, and the judge and attorneys question them in a process called voir dire to determine whether each person can be fair and impartial.3United States Courts. Juror Selection Process
To serve on a federal jury, a person must be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, and a resident of the judicial district for at least one year. They must read and speak English adequately, have no disqualifying physical or mental condition, and cannot be currently facing or previously convicted of a felony unless their civil rights have been restored.4United States Courts. Juror Qualifications, Exemptions and Excuses
Attorneys can remove potential jurors two ways. A challenge for cause is used when questioning reveals a reason the person cannot be impartial, such as a personal connection to the case or a fixed opinion about the outcome. There’s no limit on for-cause challenges.5U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Voir Dire Examination A peremptory challenge lets an attorney dismiss a juror without stating a reason, but each side gets only a limited number. Under Batson v. Kentucky, peremptory challenges cannot be used to remove jurors based on race,6Justia US Supreme Court. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) and later rulings extended that prohibition to gender.
Opening Statements
Once the jury is seated, each side speaks to the jurors directly. Opening statements are not evidence. They are roadmaps: each attorney outlines what the evidence will show and how they plan to prove their version of events.
The prosecution goes first because it carries the burden of proof.7United States Department of Justice. Trial The defense follows immediately, though it may waive its opening entirely or reserve it until after the prosecution has finished presenting evidence. Reserving gives the defense flexibility to shape its theory around what the prosecution actually proves.
The Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution presents first, in what’s called the case-in-chief. Because the government must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it builds its case before the defense says a word.
The prosecutor calls witnesses and introduces physical evidence such as documents, photographs, recordings, weapons, digital files, and scientific test results. The attorney who calls a witness conducts direct examination using open-ended questions that let the witness tell their story. The opposing attorney then cross-examines, probing for inconsistencies, challenging credibility, and testing the strength of the testimony. A brief redirect can follow to clarify anything raised on cross.
Objections and Excluded Evidence
Throughout testimony, either attorney can object to a question or item of evidence they believe violates the rules of evidence. Common objections involve hearsay (an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts), relevance, and leading questions on direct examination. The judge rules immediately. Sustaining an objection blocks the evidence; overruling it allows the evidence in. What the jury never hears cannot influence the verdict, and improperly admitted evidence can become grounds for appeal.
One of the most consequential rules is the exclusionary rule, which prevents the government from using evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. Evidence from an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, or from a coerced confession under the Fifth, is generally inadmissible. That prohibition also reaches additional evidence discovered as a result of the original violation, a principle courts call the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
The Defense’s Case
After the prosecution rests, the defense may present its own case. Here is the part people most often misunderstand: the defense is not required to present anything. The defendant is presumed innocent, and the entire burden sits with the prosecution. The defense can simply argue that the prosecution failed to carry that burden.
If the defense does put on a case, it follows the same structure of direct examination, cross-examination, and redirect. The defendant has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify, and the prosecution is constitutionally prohibited from commenting on that silence or asking the jury to draw negative conclusions from it.8Constitution Annotated. General Protections Against Self-Incrimination Doctrine and Practice If the defendant requests it, the judge must instruct the jury not to hold that decision against them.
After the defense rests, the prosecution may offer limited rebuttal evidence to address specific points the defense raised. Rebuttal is confined to countering new issues, not rehashing the original case.
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
At the close of the prosecution’s evidence, or after all evidence is in, the defense can ask the judge to enter a judgment of acquittal on any charge where the evidence is too thin to sustain a conviction.9Legal Information Institute. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 – Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal If the judge agrees, that charge is dismissed before the jury deliberates. The judge can also reserve the decision, let the jury deliberate, and set aside a guilty verdict afterward if the evidence was insufficient. Weak prosecution cases often end here without the jury ever knowing.
Closing Arguments
After both sides have rested, the attorneys deliver closing arguments. Unlike openings, closings are openly persuasive. Each attorney walks the jury through the evidence, explains how it supports their position, and argues for the verdict they want.
Federal rules set a specific order: the prosecution argues first, then the defense, and finally the prosecution gets a rebuttal.10Legal Information Institute. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.1 – Closing Argument The prosecution gets the last word because it carries the burden of proof and needs the chance to respond to whatever the defense raised.
Jury Instructions
Before deliberations begin, the judge reads the jury detailed instructions explaining the law that applies to the charges. Instructions define each crime’s elements, explain the burden of proof, and tell the jury how to apply the law to the facts. The jury is expected to decide based on the law as the judge explains it, not on jurors’ own assumptions about what the law means. Errors in jury instructions are among the most common grounds for appeal.
Deliberations and the Verdict
With instructions in hand, the jury retires to a private room. This is the only stage where the jury discusses the case. Jurors review the evidence, debate its meaning, and work toward a decision. The defendant must be present when the verdict is returned, though a defendant who voluntarily leaves after the trial begins waives that right.11Legal Information Institute. Fed. R. Crim. P. 43 – Defendant’s Presence
To convict, the jury must find that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard does not require eliminating every conceivable doubt. It means the evidence must be convincing enough that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely on it in the most important decisions of their own life. Under current law, the verdict must be unanimous for any serious criminal offense in both federal and state courts.12Constitution Annotated. Amdt6.4.4.3 Unanimity of the Jury
When the jury reaches a decision, it notifies the judge, and the verdict is read in open court. A not guilty verdict means the prosecution failed to meet its burden, and the defendant is acquitted and released. An acquittal is final: the government cannot retry you for the same offense. A guilty verdict sends the case to sentencing.
When the Jury Cannot Agree
Sometimes jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict no matter how long they deliberate. This is a hung jury. Before declaring a mistrial, the judge will usually give what’s called an Allen charge, an instruction encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider whether their doubt is reasonable, while reminding all jurors not to abandon a genuinely held conviction just to reach agreement.
If deliberations remain deadlocked, the judge declares a mistrial. A mistrial is not an acquittal. No verdict was reached, so the prosecution can retry the case with a new jury, negotiate a plea, or drop the charges. Double jeopardy protections generally do not prevent retrial after a hung jury, since no verdict was ever entered.
After a Guilty Verdict
Sentencing takes place at a separate hearing, usually weeks or months later. A probation officer conducts an independent investigation into the defendant’s background and compiles a presentence report covering the offense details, criminal history, social background, any victim impact statements, and the applicable sentencing guidelines, along with a recommendation.13United States Courts. Presentence Investigations At the hearing, both sides can argue for a particular sentence, and the defendant has the right to address the court directly. The judge weighs the report, the arguments, and the statutory range, and imposes a sentence that may include prison time, fines, probation, restitution, or some combination.
A guilty verdict is not necessarily the end. A convicted defendant has the right to appeal, though an appeal is not a new trial. The appellate court reviews the trial record for legal errors; it does not hear new evidence or re-weigh witness credibility. In federal court, a defendant must file a notice of appeal within 14 days of the judgment.14Legal Information Institute. Fed. R. App. P. 4 – Appeal as of Right — When Taken State deadlines vary but are typically 30 to 90 days. Missing the deadline can forfeit the right to appeal, which is why it’s one of the first things a defense attorney addresses after a conviction.
Common grounds for appeal include errors in jury instructions, improper admission or exclusion of evidence, insufficient evidence to support the conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court can affirm the conviction, reverse it, or send the case back to the trial court for further proceedings such as a new trial. Many appeals result in affirmance, because appellate judges give significant deference to the trial court and the defendant carries the burden of showing that an error actually affected the outcome.