Pretrial Conference


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus.

Pretrial Conference

A meeting of the parties to an action and their attorneys held before the court prior to the commencement of actual courtroom proceedings.

A pretrial conference is a meeting of the parties to a case conducted prior to trial. The conference is held before the trial judge or a magistrate, a judicial officer who possesses fewer judicial powers than a judge. A pretrial conference may be held prior to trial in both civil and criminal cases. A pretrial conference may be requested by a party to a case, or it may be ordered by the court. Generally, the term pretrial conference is used interchangeably with the term pretrial hearing.

A pretrial conference may be conducted for several reasons: (1) expedite disposition of the case, (2) help the court establish managerial control over the case, (3) discourage wasteful pretrial activities, (4) improve the quality of the trial with thorough preparation, and (5) facilitate a settlement of the case.

Pretrial conferences are conducted in criminal cases to decide matters that do not inquire into the defendant's guilt or innocence. Under rule 17.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, pretrial conferences for criminal cases may be conducted to promote a fair and expeditious trial. In practice, federal and state courts use the pretrial conference in criminal cases to decide such preliminary matters as what evidence will be excluded from trial and what witnesses will be allowed to testify.

In a civil pretrial conference, the judge or magistrate, with the help of the attorneys, may (1) formulate and simplify the issues in the case, (2) eliminate frivolous claims or defenses, (3) obtain admissions of fact and documents to avoid unnecessary proof, (4) identify witnesses and documents, (5) make schedules for the submission of pretrial briefs and motions, (6) make rulings on motions submitted before the conference, (7) set dates for further conferences, (8) discuss the possibility of a settlement, and (9) discuss the consolidation or management of large, complex cases. After the conference, the judge or magistrate issues an order reflecting the results of the conference, and the order controls the future course of the case.

Generally, the substance of a pretrial conference for a criminal case is the same as that for a civil case. At the conference the judge or magistrate may make rulings on motions, eliminate repetitive evidence, and set schedules. If a preliminary issue arises after the pretrial conference, a party may request a special pretrial hearing with the court to address the issue. (This special hearing marks the distinction between pretrial hearing and pretrial conference, when such a distinction is made.) In the alternative, the parties may address such an issue in court on the first day of trial, out of the presence of the jury.All cases are guided by procedural rules that allow parties to obtain relevant evidence from other parties. The process of turning over evidence is called discovery, and the rules that apply to obtaining evidence are called discovery rules. In civil cases, discovery refers to the right of either party to obtain evidence from the other, but in a criminal case, discovery generally refers to the right of the defendant's attorney to have access to information necessary to prepare a defense. Discovery issues are a common topic in pretrial conferences. Discovery orders that were issued prior to a pretrial conference may be reviewed for compliance at a pretrial conference, and new discovery orders may be issued after a pretrial conference.

Criminal defendants enjoy more procedural protections than do civil defendants, and the judge or magistrate must be careful to protect those rights. Generally, no criminal defendant who has requested assistance of counsel may be required to attend a pretrial conference without an attorney. No admissions made by the defendant or the defendant's lawyer during the conference may be used against the defendant in a trial unless the admissions are written and signed by the defendant and the defendant's attorney.

The judge or magistrate assigned to the case can choose to hold a pretrial conference, but the denial of a pretrial conference may be an unconstitutional denial of due process rights. For example, in a criminal case, a defendant has a due process right to a pretrial hearing when the defendant claims that a prosecutor has breached a plea agreement (United States v. Ataya, 864 F.2d 1324 [7th Cir. 1988]).

Criminal defendants must raise some issues before trial in a pretrial motion. Pretrial motions are specific requests for favorable orders from the court on particular issues. Under the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, a set of model rules written by the American Law Institute and adopted by many jurisdictions, a defendant should lose the opportunity to raise the following issues if they are not raised prior to trial: defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or formal charging instrument; requests regarding discovery, or disclosure of evidence; requests to suppress or exclude from trial potential testimony or other evidence; requests for severing the trial in cases involving codefendants; requests for the dismissal of the case; and requests for transfer of the case to another jurisdiction.

Similar requirements are imposed on prosecutors. The prosecution must tell the defendant prior to trial of its intention to use certain evidence, such as evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure, wiretap, or other Electronic Surveillance mechanism; evidence culled from a confession, admission, or statement made by the defendant; and evidence relating to a lineup, show-up, picture, or voice identification of the defendant (Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure 422(a)(1)).

Pretrial proceedings vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions courts have bifurcated the pretrial conference into dispositional conferences and trial management conferences. In St. Paul, Minnesota, for example, the district court schedules a trial management conference to discuss administrative aspects of the case, such as scheduling. The courts also schedule a dispositional conference in which the parties may discuss the possibility of a plea bargain or settlement. If no agreement between the parties is forthcoming at the dispositional conference, the case proceeds to trial, and the court schedules no further meetings between the parties until trial. The parties are, nonetheless, free to continue negotiating, and they also may request a special pretrial hearing if an issue arises after the conference but prior to trial.

The first pretrial conference in the United States was held in Michigan in 1929. Over the years, as courts became more crowded, the pretrial conference became more important. Pretrial conferences save valuable time for courts and jurors by narrowing the focus of the trial and resolving preliminary matters. They also assist the court in the fair and impartial administration of justice by facilitating discovery and reducing the element of surprise at trial. Pretrial conferences are so important in civil cases that a court may order litigants to appear at a pretrial conference and impose fines on them if they refuse to appear (G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648 [7th Cir. 1989]).

Further readings

Carlson, Elaine A. 1992. "Rule 166 Pretrial Conferences, Masters and Private Agreements: Revitalizing Old Tools to Meet Today's Needs." South Texas Law Review 33.

Masciopinto, Tony J. 1990. "G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp.: Expanding Rule 16's Scope to Compel Represented Parties with Full Settlement Authority to Attend Pretrial Conferences." DePaul Law Review 39.Miller, Frank W., Robert O. Dawson, George E. Dix, and Raymond I. Parnas. 1991. Prosecution and Adjudication. 4th ed. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press.

Parness, Jeffrey A., and Matthew R. Walker. 2002. "Thinking Outside the Civil Case Box: Reformulating Pretrial Conference Laws." University of Kansas Law Review 50.

Richardson, Elizabeth C. 1992. Civil Litigation for Paralegals. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Thompson Learning.

Cross-references

Civil Procedure; Criminal Procedure; Due Process of Law; Plea Bargaining; Right to Counsel.

References in periodicals archive ?
If the young attorney had to file a notice of appearance prior to the pretrial conference (as the proposed amendment to Rule 2.505 requires), then I would have known that plaintiff wanted a continuance and the young associate might have known the name of the law firm for which he was covering.
The pretrial conference is expected to last about 30 minutes, but could take longer if disputes remain.
BEIRUT: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon said Monday the trial chamber would hold later this week a third pretrial conference in preparation for the Jan.
Second, some courts refuse to allow SOJ as of right when litigants have had the opportunity at pretrial conferences to "test the waters" about how the judge views the case, or where the judge during these pretrial conferences has "tipped his hand" about how he feels.
On important issues, such as introducing pretrial conferences, a committee member was asked to prepare a separate memo to be discussed at the following committee meeting.
For the purposes of this study, the presiding judge agreed to randomly assign 100 of the contested cases to mediation and 100 of the cases to the traditional adjudication process that begins with a pretrial conference. The court began the random assignment in July 1998, but had to terminate the process before reaching the desired target of 100 participants for the pretrial conference group, because the randomization process would conflict with legislative changes in the dependency court process.
Although the claims representative or the insurance board is the intended audience, the video can also be played in mediation, arbitration, or at a settlement or pretrial conference, if the court permits.
She has scheduled a pretrial conference for February 14.
After a pretrial conference, at which no settlement was reached, the trial court referred the case to non-binding arbitration.
In October, representatives from the Presbyterian Church and the federal government, as well as lawyers representing 80 plaintiffs, will gather at a pretrial conference in Kenora, Ont., to attempt further negotiations in the residential schools issue.
On August 9, 2001, after a pretrial conference, the trial court ordered the hospital to produce the incident reports.
The court refused to let the female inmate raise clams of gender-based unequal treatment at the summary judgment stage of trial because she failed to introduce the claims in her complaint, or at the pretrial conference. The female inmate had asked permission to allege that the jail had an insufficient number of female officers to provide equal exercise to female inmates, and that the jail's male-only trustee policy resulted in more exercise time for male inmates.