In the U.S.

, an accused person is entitled to a government-paid defense attorney if he or she is in

jeopardy of losing his or her life and/or liberty. Those who cannot afford a private attorney may be
provided one by the state. Historically, however, the right to a defense attorney has not always been
universal. For example, in Tudor England criminals accused of treason were not permitted to offer
arguments in their defense. In many jurisdictions, there is no right to an appointed attorney, if the accused
is not in jeopardy of losing his or her liberty.
The final determination of guilt or innocence is typically made by a third party, who is supposed to be
disinterested. This function may be performed by a judge, a panel of judges, or a jury panel composed of
unbiased citizens. This process varies depending on the laws of the specific jurisdiction. In some places
the panel (be it judges or a jury) is required to issue a unanimous decision, while in others only a
majority vote is required. In America, this process depends on the state, level of court, and even
agreements between the prosecuting and defending parties. Some nations do not use juries at all, or rely
on theological or military authorities to issue verdicts.
Some cases can be disposed of without the need for a trial. In fact, the vast majority are. If the accused
confesses his or her guilt, a shorter process may be employed and a judgment may be rendered more
quickly. Some nations, such as America, allow plea bargaining in which the accused pleads guilty, nolo
contendere or not guilty, and may accept a diversion program or reduced punishment, where the
prosecution's case is weak or in exchange for the cooperation of the accused against other people. This
reduced sentence is sometimes a reward for sparing the state the expense of a formal trial. Many nations
do not permit the use of plea bargaining, believing that it coerces innocent people to plead guilty in an
attempt to avoid a harsh punishment. The courts nowadays are seeking alternative measures as opposed
to throwing someone into prison right away.[10]
The entire trial process, whatever the country, is fraught with problems and subject to
criticism. Bias and discrimination form an ever-present threat to an objective decision. Any prejudice on
the part of the lawyers, the judge, or jury members threatens to destroy the court's credibility. Some
people argue that the often Byzantine rules governing courtroom conduct and processes restrict a
layman's ability to participate, essentially reducing the legal process to a battle between the lawyers. In
this case, the criticism is that the decision is based less on sound justice and more on the lawyer's
eloquence and charisma. This is a particular problem when the lawyer performs in a substandard manner.
The jury process is another area of frequent criticism, as there are few mechanisms to guard against poor
judgment or incompetence on the part of the layman jurors. Judges themselves are very subject to bias
subject to things as ordinary as the length of time since their last break. [11]
Manipulations of the court system by defense and prosecution attorneys, law enforcement as well as the
defendants have occurred and there have been cases where justice was denied.