Formalities of the judicial process overtly reflect constitutional and procedural law, but they may also be colored by undercurrents of group and individual attitudes, e.g., prejudice or humanitarianism, held by the officials involved in the administration of justice. Already at the outset of the process, the basic accusatory constellation of the State vs. a suspect or defendant places the latter at a disadvantage and pits him against an entire bureaucratic system functioning to uphold the majority norms which he has transgressed. Despite the protection afforded by the principles of presumption of innocence and rights of the accused, working against the defendant is the psychological impact of the language used in arrest and pretrial reports and by the prosecution at trial. Furthermore, presumptive innocence shields the accused only up to the point at which guilt is proven. Discretion (police, prosecutorial, and judicial) creates vulnerable points at which unintentional inequities may arise. Nevertheless, the system is based on an ideology of equitable justice toward which its institutions and their functionaries aspire, although human nature and the complexities of social interaction make the task difficult. Sixteen references are given.