Most of us use in voir dire something along the lines of "Both the State and the Defense are entitled to a fair trial." This morning that was challenged as not being true. Specifically, it was suggested that the Defendant's right to a fair trial is Constitutional through the 6th Amendment, and that there is no such provision for the State. We were requested to provide some law that says the State is entitled to a fair trial.

CCP 1.03 seems to address the issue. However, we are trying to be delicate (and not incredulous) with our answers given who raised the issue.

Has anyone else been told that the State isn't entitled to a fair trial, and asked to prove it?

Did the defense or judge bring it up?

Judge...

Looks like this is a concept being pushed nationally, probably at seminars, "State has no right to a fair trial." There are some articles on Westlaw challenging the State's right to a fair trial.

I like the 1.03 idea.

I'd say this is a fantastic voir dire question now. "The defense is guaranteed a fair trial, it turns out there's some debate about whether the State deserves a fair trial. Who here thinks it's important that the State also get a fair trial?"

Courts have often referenced that "fundamental fairness is essential to the very concept of justice." And there has been mention of a court's need to "protect a defendant's right to a fair trial, the government's right to present its case, and the public's right to "expect 'fair trials designed to end in just judgments.'" United States v. Lehder-Rivas, 669 F.Supp. 1563, 1571 (M.D. Fla. 1987), citing United States v. Tijerina, 412 F.2d 661, 666 (10th Cir.) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 69 S.Ct. 834, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 990, 90 S.Ct. 478, 24 L.Ed.2d 452 (1969). The Tenth Circuit did state: "The concept of a fair trial applies both to the prosecution and the defense."

But, there is no provision in either the Texas or the federal constitution that guarantees a fair trial to the government in a criminal case. While that does not mean the trial judge should not remain impartial and seek to rigorously follow the rules of evidence and procedure without regard to the effect on either of the adversaries, the defendant's objection in your case probably grows out of the fact that, short of a successful mandamus in very limited circumstances, the State has no means of enforcing its views on erroneous departures from the rules of trial. If the defendant is acquitted, the State cannot appeal, and even if the defendant appeals, the State cannot raise an issue unless a new trial is to be ordered.

Rather than speaking in terms of a "fair trial," the prosecutor might say something like, "the course of the trial will be governed by certain set rules of evidence and procedure, which Judge ___ will have the responsibility of following and enforcing despite any variances that may be attempted, or objections that may be raised, by counsel for either party."