Court Reporting Horror Stories Working as a court reporter is an interesting but pretty straight forward job. But, sometimes, things don’t always go the way you expect them to. From a court reporter who had to transcribe the Nuremberg trials of accused Nazi war criminals and the actions of the infamous Third Reich, to grizzly depictions of dead bodies that court reporters in murder cases sometimes see. A court reporter is a person whose occupation is to transcribe spoken or recorded speech into written form. An official court reporter works in a court room and transcribes court proceedings, in doing so they come across difficult cases and people. One court reporter named Vivien Spitz had to record the actions of the Third Reich. Fifty- four …show more content…
She says that her division was a strictly criminal trial division and that they averaged about 85 jury trials in six months. She says the some of the exhibits in the trials are gruesome. In one case the attorney who represented the State of Florida wanted to show autopsy photos. She said that those photos, “were some of the most gruesome photographs,” she had ever seen. They depicted the face of a victim who was shot in the head execution style. The Medical Examiner had taken the skin off. The said the worst part about it was that the victim was found days after the ‘execution’ and the Florida sun had further damaged the body. She said that the jury was spared seeing the picture but the court reporters were not. She says, “That trial was 15 years ago and I still remember it.” When you work as a court reporter sometimes you witness some of the most horrific things and unfortunately some of those things may haunt you even after the trial is over. These are just two examples of court reporter that saw, “grizzly” or “gruesome” things while recording cases. Patricia Bailey-Entin said, “It’s ironic that the events you feel will break you are truly the experiences that will make you
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
Billy Joel once sang, “Only the good die young”. In life, it is true, the young and innocent seem to touch more lives around us than anyone else. In the Casey Anthony trial, Anthony was a suspect in the murder of her daughter Caylee. Caylee’s life shouldn’t be counted in years, it should be counted by how many lives she affected, the love she has gained, and the support the country has given her to find out what really happened. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a boy killed his father; however, both cases were challenged by the obvious and the abstruse evidence. Large cities towards the east coast, in 1982, Twelve Angry Men, and 2008, Casey Anthony Trial, affiliated with two major trials able to modify the lives of the living and the dead. For that reason, during the Casey Anthony case, jurors were conflicted throughout the trial.
The Andrea Yates murder trial was one of the most highly publicized cases of 2001. Perplexing and complicated, it appealed to the public audience for various reasons. A mother methodically, drowns her five children in the family bathtub after her husband leaves for work. Was this an act of a cold calculating killer, or was this the act of a woman who lost touch with reality. Is this a case of medical neglect, and psychological dysfunctions, or is this a battle of ethics and deviant behavior exploiting medical and legal loop holes?
One of the most intense group task experiences in the United States is that of serving on the jury of a death penalty case. This forces a group of complete strangers to come together and determine the fate of another’s human beings life. The court case of the State of Ohio v Mark Ducic, was of no exception. Ducic a 47 year old drug addict white male, was accused of committing a double homicide. In accordance with Ohio state law, murdering more than one individual is considered a mass murder and therefore the accused is subject to the possibility of the death penalty. Ducic’s victims included Barbara Davis, his domestic partner and drug addict, as well as a drug user that Ducic was an acquaintance with. The death of Davis was at first believed to be due to an overdose, but police informants identified Ducic’s voice on a recording claiming that he killed her. The other victim, the drug addict, was thought to be eliminated by Ducic for fear that he would inform the police that he killed Davis. Investigators believed that Ducic gave both victims a deathly amount of drugs that would make it appear as though they both simply overdosed. Ducic was found guilty on both occasions, yet a second trial in regards to his sentencing had to occur and another hearing had to be conducted on whether or not to remove the death penalty.
While researching this issue, I wanted to see what my State laws were and how it pertained to the question at hand. “Historically, access to courtrooms and adjacent areas to broadcast, televise, record and photograph court proceedings was tenuous, particularly after the media coverage of the Sam Shepard trial in the 1950s caused many courts to close their doors to the media. Then, on October 29, 1991, the Supreme Court of Missouri established a task force to determine whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. After considering the issue, the task force recommended that the Supreme Court adopt a rule authorizing broadcasting, televising, recording and taking photographs in Missouri courtrooms on an experimental basis and under controlled conditions. This rule derived from the Court's constitutional authority to
On the morning of July 4, 1954, Marilyn Sheppard was violently beaten in her home in Bay Village, Ohio, on the shore of Lake Erie. She was four months pregnant and had been felled by 35 vicious blows (Quade). Right away Sam Sheppard was accused of being the victim to do this. Sheppard had told investigators that he had been asleep downstairs and was awakened by his wife’s screams. Sheppard said when he went upstairs and entered the room he was knocked unconscious by the intruder. He denied any involvement and described his battle with the killer he described as “bushy-haired” (Linder). After a police investigation, Dr. Sam Sheppard was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. With the hectic media covering it, they were quick in decision that it was him that committed the murder. This was an unfair trial, ruined a man’s life, and gave him no time for a career.
Arguing that the experiences of the McCarthy years profoundly influenced the practice of journalism, he shows how many of the issues faced by journalists in the 1950s prefigure today's conflicts over the right of journalists to protect their sources. The journalists’ treatment was unfair that is why they believed that going to jail is better than stating false facts in front of the court because they were innocent. “If you don’t stand for what you believe in, don’t risk a decision because you think you might lose, I think that is a short-sighted approach” (Alwood, 148) This is a fascinating and detailed look at one aspect of the McCarthy era that continues to influence contemporary journalism.
Throughout history there have always been issues concerning judicial courts and proceedings: issues that include everything from the new democracy of Athens, Greece, to the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony trial as well as the Trayvon Martin trial. One of the more recent and ever changing issues revolves around cameras being allowed and used inside courtrooms. It was stated in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management by Stephen W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr. that “the question of whether or not to allow cameras in American courtrooms has been debated for nearly fifty years by scholars, media representatives, concerned citizens, and others involved in the criminal justice system.” The negatives that can be attached to the presence of cameras inside a courtroom are just as present, if not more present, than the positives that go hand-in-hand with the presence of cameras.
The trial of O.J Simpson, an infamous case that had america glued to their Tv’s. Tensions were high as 11 months passed as the verdict was nearing. The case goes as following, O.J was accused of the murder of his ex wife Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. On June 13, 1994 Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were found dead around midnight near the entryway of Nicole’s apartment complex. The crime was heinous for the times and took America by storm. With O.J being a famous main suspect, the media wanted to give as much insight about the trial to the people watching at home and the first amendment gives them that right to gather intel. At first the media was not allowed to share what was happening in the trial. But later on, judge Ito later gave the media permission to cover the trial as long as the media does not disclose the insight of the grand jury. To coincide with this, the media wanted access to the preliminary hearings. Several news organizations requested access to photographs of the crime and transcripts of conferences held in the judge’s office. A lot of this information was sensitive material that was still being decided upon whether to reveal to the jury, but the media still wanted to have
The problem with unrecorded interrogations is that videotaped confessions are often entered into court as evidence without allowing the judge or jury to observe the circumstances under which the confession was given. In a recent case, 52-year-old Conrado Juarez confessed to the 1991 rape and murder of his cousin, Anjelica Castillo, known in the media as Baby Hope (McKinley & Goldstein, 2013). The four-year-old girl’s body had been found in a cooler on the side of the Henry Hudson Parkway and gone unidentified until October 2013 when Juarez confessed to helping his now deceased sister move her body there. After 12 hours of interrogation, however, Juarez confessed much more. The confession was videotaped, but the 12-hour long interrogation was not. Juarez retracted his confession soon afterwards, claiming that he was exhausted from the prolonged questioning and...
This event overall was very quality. They loaded the auditorium with people as a judge sat on the top of the stage. They escorted in a :criminal” in. Later we would learn he was a drunk driver. He had killed an innocent teen, and injured two others. The girls parents are testifying against him for the murder of their daughter.
How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse? The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh, stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes in a formal tone as she delves into a pool of various example trials used to explain visual evidence, along with specific quotes obtained from well-known lawyers and workers in the industry. This simply states the recurring idea that visual evidence is important.
Some people say that by watching the court system in action, what once was very unknown and unfamiliar, has now become familiar and useful in helping people become more knowledgeable of what happens inside courtrooms. Most people have not been in courtrooms and only have the perspective that T.V. gives to them. Now they are able to see what really goes on and can better understand and relate. Having court proceedings on T.V. can help us really understand and become educated about them.
The judge was a middle-aged male who looked intimidating and seemed to be well respected. To my surprise, we did not have to stand up when he entered the room. After the judge came out I assumed the jury would follow quickly after. However I quickly learned that there would be no jury for this particular trial. After a few minutes, the handcuffed defendant entered the room wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. He was a middle-aged, African-American male who was involved in a narcotic conspiracy case. In addition to the defendant a probation officer, the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer were also present. Aside from me, my classmate and a student from Georgetown the defendant’s wife and sister were in the