What Happens During a Trial? Jury, Evidence, and Verdict

A trial is the structured courtroom process in which each side presents evidence to a judge or jury that then decides the outcome. What happens during a trial follows a predictable sequence: jury selection, opening statements from each side, the presentation of evidence through witnesses and exhibits, closing arguments, instructions to the jury on the law, deliberation, and a verdict. Criminal and civil trials share this arc. The details differ, and parts of the process can shorten or stop the trial before it reaches a verdict.

Jury Selection

Jury selection, called voir dire, is where the judge and the attorneys question a pool of prospective jurors to find people who can decide the case fairly. The court asks whether anyone knows the parties or lawyers, has a personal stake in the outcome, or holds strong feelings that could color their judgment.¹

Attorneys can remove prospective jurors in two ways. A challenge for cause targets someone who shows clear bias, such as a family tie to a party or an admission they’ve already made up their mind. These challenges require a stated reason, and the judge decides whether the reason is sufficient. There is no cap on the number a side can raise.¹

Peremptory challenges let attorneys strike jurors without giving any reason, but each side gets only a fixed number, and the exact count depends on the type of case.² One important limit applies to peremptory strikes: they cannot be used to exclude jurors based on race, ethnicity, or sex. If the opposing side believes that is happening, they can raise a Batson challenge, which may result in the strike being disallowed or even a new trial.

Opening Statements

Once the jury is seated, each side gives an opening statement. These are not arguments. The attorney gives the jury a roadmap of what the evidence is expected to show, introducing the key people, events, and disputes in the case. Think of it as a preview rather than a pitch.

The side with the burden of proof goes first. In a criminal case that’s the prosecutor; in a civil case it’s the plaintiff’s attorney. The defense follows with its own opening, though in some jurisdictions the defense can hold its opening until after the other side finishes presenting evidence. Waiting lets the defense see what it is actually up against before committing to a narrative.

Presenting the Evidence

The evidence phase is the heart of the trial. The side with the burden of proof presents its case first, calling witnesses and introducing documents, photographs, and other exhibits. After that side rests, the defense puts on its own case using the same procedures. The judge controls the overall flow and can step in to keep things focused and to protect witnesses from harassment.³

Witness Examination

Witness testimony follows a specific back-and-forth. During direct examination, the attorney who called the witness asks open-ended questions to draw out the account. Leading questions, the kind that suggest the answer, are generally not allowed on direct.³

After direct, the opposing attorney cross-examines the witness. Cross-examination is limited to topics covered during direct and to the witness’s credibility, and leading questions are not only allowed but expected. The goal is to poke holes in the testimony, highlight inconsistencies, or show the witness has a reason to be biased.³

If cross-examination muddied something, the attorney who originally called the witness can conduct a redirect to clear it up, and the other side may then do a brief re-cross limited to what came up during redirect. In practice, most witnesses go through direct and cross only. Redirect and re-cross happen when something genuinely needs clarifying.

Exhibits

Documents, photographs, recordings, and physical objects enter the trial record as exhibits. To get an exhibit admitted, an attorney typically has a witness identify it and confirm it’s authentic. For a photograph of a scene, a witness who was there testifies that the image accurately shows what they saw. Once the judge admits the exhibit, it becomes part of the official record the jury can review during deliberations.

Expert Witnesses

Expert witnesses are different. Unlike ordinary witnesses, who testify about what they personally saw or experienced, experts offer opinions based on specialized knowledge. A forensic accountant might explain how money moved through shell companies. A medical expert might describe the long-term effects of an injury. Before an expert can testify, the judge acts as a gatekeeper, evaluating whether the expert’s methodology is reliable and relevant. That screening keeps unreliable opinions away from the jury.

Objections

Throughout the evidence phase, attorneys raise objections when they believe the other side is breaking the rules. These happen in real time, and the judge rules immediately. Common objections include:

Relevance. Evidence must have some tendency to make a fact in the case more or less likely. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.⁴
Hearsay. A statement someone made outside the courtroom, offered to prove that what they said is true, is generally not admissible. There are dozens of exceptions, including statements made in the heat of the moment, statements about the speaker’s current physical or mental state, and business records kept in the ordinary course of operations.⁵
Leading questions on direct examination.
Speculation. A non-expert witness can only testify about what they personally observed, not guess about what they didn’t see.
Unfair prejudice. Even relevant evidence can be excluded if its emotional impact would substantially outweigh its value, such as graphic photographs that would inflame the jury without adding much proof.

When a judge sustains an objection, the jury must disregard the question or answer. When the judge overrules it, the testimony stands. Attorneys who fail to object at the right moment generally lose the ability to raise that issue later on appeal, which is why experienced trial lawyers stay alert to every question and answer.

Closing Arguments

After both sides rest, closing arguments give the attorneys their chance to tie everything together. Unlike openings, closings are arguments. Lawyers highlight the evidence that supports their version of events, challenge the credibility of the other side’s witnesses, and explain how the law applies to the facts.

The plaintiff or prosecution argues first, followed by the defense. Because the plaintiff or prosecution carries the burden of proof, they typically get a rebuttal after the defense finishes. That final word is limited to responding to points the defense raised; it is not a second closing argument.

Jury Instructions and Deliberation

Before the jury deliberates, the judge reads a set of instructions explaining the law that applies to the case. These include the burden of proof. In criminal cases, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the highest standard in the legal system. In civil cases, the standard is usually “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the claim is more likely true than not. Timing varies by jurisdiction. Some judges deliver instructions before closing arguments, others after.

Once instructed, the jury retires to a private room, selects a foreperson, and begins working through the evidence. Deliberations are confidential. Jurors can review exhibits admitted during trial and can ask that testimony be read back to them. Criminal verdicts in both federal and state courts must be unanimous for non-petty offenses.⁶ Civil cases are different, and a majority of states allow non-unanimous verdicts in civil trials.

If the jury cannot agree, the judge may give an Allen charge, an instruction urging jurors to keep deliberating and reconsider their positions while staying true to their honest beliefs. These charges are controversial, and many states don’t allow them. If deliberations remain deadlocked, the judge declares a mistrial, and the case may be retried with a new jury.

The Verdict

When the jury reaches a decision, they return to the courtroom. The foreperson hands the verdict form to the court clerk or judge, who reads it aloud. In a criminal case, the verdict is “guilty” or “not guilty.” A not-guilty verdict means the prosecution failed to meet its burden; it does not necessarily mean the jury believes the defendant is innocent. In a civil case, the verdict is “liable” or “not liable,” and if the defendant is found liable, the verdict typically includes the amount of damages owed.

When a Trial Ends Early

Not every trial reaches a verdict. Two mechanisms can cut the process short.

A directed verdict (called “judgment as a matter of law” in federal court) happens when one side’s evidence is so weak that no reasonable jury could find in their favor. Either party can request one after the opposing side finishes presenting its case. If the judge agrees, the trial ends without the jury ever deliberating. In federal criminal cases, this takes the form of a judgment of acquittal.

A mistrial occurs when something goes so wrong that continuing would be fundamentally unfair. Common triggers include a hung jury, improper admission of prejudicial evidence, and serious misconduct by attorneys, witnesses, or jurors. After a mistrial, the case doesn’t just disappear. The prosecution can generally retry a criminal defendant unless the mistrial was caused by prosecutorial misconduct intentionally designed to force the defendant into requesting one.⁷

After a Guilty Verdict: Sentencing

A guilty verdict doesn’t end a criminal case. Sentencing is a separate phase, often scheduled weeks or months later. In most courts, a pre-sentence investigation takes place in the interim. A probation officer examines the defendant’s criminal history, family situation, health, employment, and other factors, then prepares a report for the judge. In the vast majority of cases, the judge alone sets the sentence, though juries handle sentencing in some states when the death penalty is a possibility. Federal courts and many states use sentencing guidelines to promote consistency across similar cases.

Post-Trial Motions and Appeals

The verdict isn’t always the final word. The losing side has several options for challenging the result.

A motion for a new trial argues that serious errors during the trial affected the outcome. Grounds include juror bias, violations of the defendant’s constitutional rights, significant legal mistakes by the judge, or newly discovered evidence that could change the result. To succeed, the moving party generally must show the error wasn’t harmless and that it genuinely undermined the right to a fair trial.

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (called judgment as a matter of law in federal court) asks the judge to override the jury’s decision entirely. The judge grants this only when no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict based on the evidence. It’s a high bar, and judges use it sparingly.

If post-trial motions fail, the losing party can appeal to a higher court. Deadlines are strict. In federal civil cases, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the judgment, or 60 days if the federal government is a party. In federal criminal cases, the defendant has 14 days and the government has 30.⁸ An appeal doesn’t retry the facts. The appellate court reviews whether the trial court made legal errors that affected the outcome. If it finds reversible error, it can order a new trial, modify the judgment, or dismiss the case.

Jury Trial vs. Bench Trial

Not every trial involves a jury. In a bench trial, the judge alone hears the evidence and decides the outcome, acting as both the legal authority and the fact-finder. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a jury trial for non-petty offenses, and the Seventh Amendment preserves the right in federal civil cases where more than twenty dollars is at stake.⁹¹⁰ Defendants can waive that right. In federal criminal cases, a jury trial is required unless the defendant waives in writing, the government consents, and the court approves.¹¹ A bench trial follows the same evidence-presentation sequence as a jury trial, minus anything jury-related, and tends to move faster.

1
U.S. District Court. The Voir Dire Examination
2
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 24 – Trial Jurors
3
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 611 – Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
4
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402 – General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
5
Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803 – Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
6
Congress.gov. Amdt6.4.4.3 Unanimity of the Jury
7
Congress.gov. Amdt5.3.4 Re-Prosecution After Mistrial
8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Appellate Procedure Guide – Appellate Deadlines
9
Congress.gov. Amdt6.4.1 Overview of Right to Trial by Jury
10
Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Seventh Amendment
11
Justia Law. Fed. R. Crim. P. 23 – Jury or Nonjury Trial