The Justice Courts have limited jurisdiction as to the types of cases they may hear. Specifically, Justice Courts hear minor criminal cases and traffic citations. Justice Courts do have the authority to hear cases involving Class B or Class C Misdemeanors. They also listen to cases involving: Small Claims, Violations of Ordinances, and Infractions. Counties and municipalities establish Utah Justice Courts. You may be surprised to learn that Justice Court judges do not need to be licensed attorneys. Justice Courts are the first tier in Utah’s Judiciary System.

In contrast to Justice Courts, District Courts have general jurisdiction. District Courts hear all civil cases, all criminal felonies, and under some circumstances, higher-level misdemeanor cases and family and domestic violence cases. Criminal felonies include murder, rape, burglary, homicide, kidnapping, and arson – to name a few. District Courts also have jury trials and the ability to hear appeals from the limited jurisdiction courts. Currently, there are eight judicial districts in Utah. They are the second

In-custody Defendants. The court will continue to perform all mission-critical functions for in-custody defendants, including, but not limited to:

• Probable cause review of warrantless arrests,

• Bail hearings,

• Bench warrant hearings,

• Arraignments,

• Appearances mandated by statute, and

• Sentencing hearings.

During the red phase, all hearings set for in-custody defendants will be re-set on video-conferencing calendars to minimize the risk to vulnerable populations, meaning all transports during that period are canceled. The parties are directed to immediately inform the court if this court is holding any in-custody defendants so the court can reconsider the defendant’s custody status. This process intends to supplement the court’s ongoing review of its records of in-custody defendants.

Out-of-custody Defendants. • Exigent Circumstances Hearings. All exigent circumstances hearings that cannot be accommodated by teleconference or video-conference will be handled in-person on Wednesday mornings at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1. No other in-person hearings will be conducted in the red phase. • Arraignments. i. Traffic. Defendants who are issued a traffic citation during the red phase are ordered to pay or schedule an arraignment within 14 days of the date of the citation using this link:

https://doodle.com/mm/saltlakejusticecourtarraignments/bookablecalendar.

You may pay by mail, in person, or visit our website at www.slcgov.com/courts. ii. Misdemeanor/Criminal. Defendants who are issued a misdemeanor/criminal citation during the red phase are ordered to schedule an arraignment within 14 days of the date of the citation using this link: https://doodle.com/mm/saltlakejusticecourtarraignments/bookablecalendar.

This is simply a small excerpt from the court’s website. However, I encourage you to go in and explore it for yourself. You will be able to find out how to attend a Court hearing remotely, view the FAQ section, find out how to file documents and pay fines, and view the color-coded Court map.

The main steps in processing a criminal case:

1. An arrest has been made. This could be made at the scene of a crime, or as the result of an investigation. Police and detectives will hold a criminal investigation to gather evidence to identify a suspect and support an arrest. A search may be performed as part of this process. Probable cause is the standard of proof required for a search to take place. Probable cause means there are facts or apparent facts indicating evidence of a crime can be found in a specific location.
2. The prosecution has been made. When a person is charged with a crime, they are a criminal defendant by the district attorney. When deciding whether to charge a person with a crime, many factors will weigh in on the prosecutor’s decision. Including the seriousness of the offense and the strength of the evidence.
3. Arraignment by a judge. This happens before the trial and is where the defendant appears in court and enters a plea.
4. Pretrial detention and/or bail. This is the period that a person is held in custody before the trial takes place. A bail amount is set and may be paid should the defendant wish or can do so. This money is paid by the defendant to ensure he or she will show up for trial.
5. Although this is not an official stage, plea bargaining is quite common to reduce our already strained criminal justice system. This is a meeting between prosecuting and defense attorneys in which a charge reduction or a sentence reduction is offered in exchange for a guilty plea.
6. Under The United States Constitution, a person has the right to choose if they would like a jury trial or a trial by a judge alone. This is the case when a sentence will be more than six months of imprisonment.
7. Should the defendant be found guilty, the sentencing stage will begin. A judge will carry this out. The sentence will depend on a variety of factors, including previous convictions and mandatory minimum sentences. Possible sentences include fines, probation, a period of incarceration in either a jail or prison, or a combination of supervision and community service.
8. Appeals may be filed in appellate courts and then ruled on by appellate judges. There are many directions that this hearing can go. However, should the case get reversed, then the original hearing is treated as though it has never happened. Prosecuting attorneys can then decide to refile the case or drop the charges. However, keep in mind that the case can be refiled should the statute of limitations not expire for the crime.

Don’t go through this process alone.

Most people know individuals have better success with their legal endeavors with an attorney. If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime, they have the right to an attorney. If you have been charged with a crime in Utah, consider calling Christopher Ault of Utah Criminal Defense Attorneys to learn more about your options. We can be reached at 801-987-8409 to speak with a professional and schedule a consultation.

Dr. Hampikian’s op-ed in the New York Times yesterday should sound a bell for any person who faces criminal charges supported by DNA test results. Dr. Hampikian reports that in a recent reliability study, 74 out of 108 crime laboratories implicated an innocent person in a hypothetical bank robbery.

Dr. Hampikian cites a study by the National Institute of Standards and Testing. Here’s what he says happened:

“Researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology gave the same DNA mixture to about 105 American crime laboratories and three Canadian labs and asked them to compare it with DNA from three suspects from a mock bank robbery.

The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an ‘innocent person’ who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.”

Dr. Hampikian also reports on the interpretation of DNA mixtures from three or more persons. The statistics generated by laboratories relied upon to explain the likelihood of an innocent match. He reports that laboratories “analyzing the same evidence calculated vastly different statistics. Among 108 crime labs in the study, the match statistics varied over 100 trillion-fold.”

Those statistics are critical in defense of a person whose freedom depends on explaining an apparent DNA match. Prosecutors typically rely on Ph.D. scientists to explain the likelihood of the significance of finding the defendant’s DNA at the scene of a crime. Those witnesses inevitably offer their expert opinion that the chances of a sample found at the scene of the crime (blood, for example) having come from someone other than the defendant is a virtual statistical impossibility. Consider some crazy number – like the chance that blood came from someone other than the defendant is on the order of 1 in 100 million. That enormous statistical improbability almost certainly seals the defendant’s conviction, unless there is another explanation. If the statistics generated by different labs vary by over 100 trillion-fold, the statistical evidence’s value may be suspect.

The authors of the study did not immediately publish their work in peer-reviewed journals or sound an alarm that shoddy lab work poses a considerable risk for criminal defendants. They apparently kept quiet, and when they finally did publish the results, they seemingly tried to tinker with its use by the lawyers who face such evidence in court.

So if the science is accurate, and by now we know it is, but the laboratories are not handling the evidence to get reliable results, people will be wrongly convicted. Hampikian points to just such a case in Nevada, where Dwayne Jackson faced a home invasion and kidnapping charge when he was 18 years old. The state’s evidence included a DNA match tying him to the scene. Told he would spend life in prison if he went to trial. He pleads guilty to reduced charges in 2003, only to later be freed because the crime laboratory had accidentally switched his sample with another suspect’s tube. He spent nearly four years in prison before the lab admitted they got it wrong.

Dr. Hampikian points to computer programs that can assist in excluding innocent profiles, thereby providing a means of correcting past errors and preventing errors in the future. His work reviewing cases using such software has already identified innocent persons wrongly convicted in New Mexico, Indiana, Montana, and a new suspect in a 23-year-old murder.

If you are a lawyer facing DNA evidence, get some help. Your client may not be guilty, even if some lab says otherwise. Be prepared and fight on.