The suggestion that courts operate in either an adversarial manner or in one of cooperation seeks to draw too bright a line across the workings of the American Court System. To suggest that the system is either one or the other is to combine two distinct, yet concurrent, operations. Overall the \"system\" is an adversarial system or process. Within that system, however, the major players judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys often work in a cooperative nature. The system, therefore, is an adversarial system, highlighted by cooperation. Television and the movies portray the adversarial process as a grand battle between competing combatants. Lawyers jump up and down with objections; heated battles take place before the judge, and one side wins and the other loses. When (or if) a criminal case reaches the stage portrayed in this manner, it is actually at just the most publicly visible point in the adversarial process. The overarching ideals of the criminal court process pit the prosecution's desire for crime control against the defendant's desire for due process and fairness. The steps through which the case proceeds initial appearance, formal charging, arraignment, trial, and sentencing are each fraught with adversarial aspects. For example, at the initial appearance when the pre-trial release determination is being made, the prosecution may be concerned about the likelihood that the accused will return to court at the appointed time or that the accused will commit more crimes while awaiting trial. The defense, in its adversarial role, must work to ensure that the accused's interests in liberty, in protection from excessive bail, and protection from punishment without conviction are all met. This is particularly true since a study by the Vera Institute, found that \"those who were unable to secure [pre-trial] release were more likely to be convicted, and if convicted, more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison than those who did make bail.\" Other protections exist to accentuate the adversarial nature. For example, the prosecution must make available to the defendant all information in its les, particularly exculpatogy (favorable to the defendant) information (precedent created by the case, Brady v. Maryland, 1963). The defendant, thereby, knows what the prosecution knows and is able to better counter the evidence of the prosecution. This may include invoking the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence. All of these adversarial safeguards and procedures work to ensure that the prosecution meets its burden of proving \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" that the accused committed the crime. Although the overall process is one built upon setting one side against the other, the actual practice of the system often nds the major players working in cooperation to reach seemingly different goals. This cooperative practice can best be seen in the concept of plea-bargaining. As Cole relates \"Very few cases go to trial; instead a negotiated guilty plea developed through the interactions of prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges determines what will nally happen to most criminal defendants.\" Negotiation might be viewed as adversarial cooperation, with the opposing sides cooperating to reach an agreement, but doing so from different perspectives and with different goals. This concept of cooperating or negotiating to reach a plea-bargain is something that must be learned by both the prosecutor and defense attorney. (Although it is worth noting that some authors put forth the idea that defense attorneys are forced into this process of cooperation). It is not necessary to look at the criminal court system as either an adversarial system or a cooperative system. At the macro-level, the system's ideals, goals ad processes are of an adversarial nature. The application of the system nds cooperation to be routine practice. The American Criminal Court System is, therefore, a cooperative adversarial system