When disputes cannot be settled in a case, the parties can elect to go to trial in a state court. The trial courts have the authority to hear every case first. This section will examine the principle of orality and the adversarial system used to settle disputes in trial courts.

Principle of Orality

At trial, the state will present evidence showing facts demonstrating that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant may also present facts that show they did not commit the crime. The principle of orality requires that the trier of fact (generally the jury, unless the defendant waives a jury trial) considers only the evidence developed, presented, and received into the record during trial. As such, jurors should only make their decision based on the testimony they heard at trial and the evidence introduced and admitted by the court. The principle of orality would be violated if, for example, the jury searched the internet during deliberations to find information on the defendant or witnesses. Similarly, if the police question the defendant and write a report, the jury cannot consider the report unless it has been offered with the rules of evidence during the trial. The principle of orality distinguishes the functions of a trial court, developing the evidence, and the function of the appellate courts, reviewing the record for legal error.

Licenses and Attributions for State Trial Courts and the Principle of Orality

Open Content, Shared Previously

“American Trial Courts and the Principle of Orality” is adapted from “7.5. American Trial Courts and the Principle of Orality” by Lore Rutz-Burri in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Sam Arungwa, revisions by Roxie Supplee, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, include editing for clarity, removing previously covered content, and updating image content for DEI.