Following a guilty verdict, the accused may file motions to set the verdict aside or ask the court for a new trial based upon a variety of irregularities or evidentiary problems arising during the course of the trial.  Unless such a motion is granted, the judge will ordinarily hold a subsequent hearing to impose a sentence upon the accused.  In some capital cases, jurors may actually preside over the penalty phase of a case, determining whether or not to recommend the death penalty.

Prior to sentencing the accused, authorities normally conduct a pre-sentencing investigation, reporting to the judge on various aspects of the defendant's life and circumstances that may be relevant to the imposition of a sentence.  While the judge has traditionally enjoyed wide discretion in shaping a defendant's sentence to fit the particular circumstances of each case, many states and the federal government have established sentencing guidelines designed to eliminate great variations in sentencing and provide for more predictable sentences.  At one time, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines adopted in all United States District Courts were imposed as "mandatory" parameters which all federal judges were required to meet.  In practice, this limited the effectiveness of a prosecutor's plea recommendations and made it more difficult to reach plea bargains in several cases.  In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held such mandatory requirements were unconstitutional, but permitted federal judges to consider the recommendations for sentencing while retaining the discretion to deviate from them.