The “funnel effect’ of the court system refers to the fact that far fewer cases actually end up in court than initial arrests and legal proceedings would suggest. That is, as defendants and cases move through the system, a variety of options, from plea bargaining to outright dismissal of a complaint, lessens the number of potential cases. The effect reflects the key element in the court system of a greater severity of action requiring a greater weight of fact. For example, a police officer making a formal arrest requires more fact than does an officer simply asking a question of someone seen as suspicious, as pressing charges demands more fact than does holding someone on suspicion of a crime.

Given the complex nature of the court system, the “funnel effect” is absolutely necessary in reducing the volume of cases in a system already overburdened. It is as well a necessary extension of the founding principles of justice, and cannot actually be changed without undermining the process of liberty. The best that can be done is a careful improvement of the many processes within it, so that neither innocent people are wrongfully charged, and guilty people do not go free because of improper procedures. At its best, the “funnel effect” should serve to streamline the court system.

The criminal court process technically begins with the arrest of a defendant, or suspect. This is followed by something on the order of a preliminary hearing, which is the initial appearance of the defendant in that role. It is here that a presiding judge must determine if there is sufficient proof to continue on with the case, and/or to even hold the defendant as a suspect.

If charged, the defendant then may engage a lawyer or have an attorney provided by the court. This is a right all citizens have, that of being equipped with trained defense counsel. Meanwhile, the state, or “the people”, prepares its case against the defendant. Both defense and prosecution must comply with court directives regarding the legal obtaining of evidence, disclosing it to the judge, and presenting their cases at the appointed time. Then, before most trials, jury selection is done, wherein both counsels have the right to challenge potentially biased or unfit jurors. This is a critical decision point. Some cases are “bench” trials, decided only by the judge.

Following this is the typical trial, the duration of which depends entirely on the complexity of the case. At the close, both attorneys present closing arguments, the jury deliberates, and the verdict is announced. In a “guilty” verdict, the issue of sentencing is then addressed, and this as well usually involves further efforts from both counsels. This decision point is the culmination of all the previous processes.
…