Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Courtroom observation paper criminal law
Function and role of judges
Roles of judges
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Courtroom observation paper criminal law
As I walked in and I went through the same metal detector. Same guard and lackadaisical nature. Same elevator and third floor. I quickly used the restroom and waited in anticipation for the doors to open to the courtroom. I was finally ready to use the notebook I had brought every time to get down the best notes possible for the assignment given so long ago. As the doors were opened the same jurors walked in and I recognized the judge and deputy assigned to this case from before. This time, I walked in after the jurors and sat in the very back right corner of the room. The room looked exactly the same as before but I did notice there was one other person in the room. I assumed it must be the prosecutor for the case. As I waited for everything …show more content…
He added in that if anyone spoke Spanish, to correct any interpretations that may occur. After this fifteen-minute process was over, the judge started by talking to the prosecutor and the attorney. He told them that both of them would be sharing a statement of the case, but anything that will be said will not be used as evidence during their statements. The prosecutor was first. She started reviewing the story of how this case came to be. She began by saying on June 9th 2012, Jorge was charged with sexual abuse, also known as rape, of a seven-year-old girl named Rosa. Rosa had been on summer vacation from school, and was visiting her father in Hemet. Rosas father let her and her brother know that they would soon be going back with their mother Elizabeth and step father Jorge. Elizabeth and Jorge lived in Hemet as well not far from Carlos. She went on to explain that Rosa was very adamant about not wanting to go back home. Carlos was confused as to why she didn’t want to go home, and that is when Rosa told him she had been touched by her step father Jorge. Once Carlos heard this, he didn’t hesitate to file a police report and had the police go to Elizabeth and Jorge’s house. When the police investigated, Elizabeth exclaimed that Jorge would never do anything like that. She was under the impression Rosa had lied to her
For the purpose of the paper, I will summarize the facts and leading events of the case of Elenita L and Romer N. Fajota. As reading through this trial I discovered that judges don’t always make the right decision for families or individuals. Likely in this case it is presentably true. Elenita and Romer got married in June 2005 and have three minor children together. As their marriage progressed, in the beginning of the year 2006, Romero became physically violent against Elenita. Romer committed various acts of violence against her and stated in court that it continued “even while pregnant with their second child”. But however, from 2006 to 2008 the violence continued against Elenita and her children. As the domestic violence continued, Elenita filed a
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.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
The courthouse was crowded, all seats were taken and many were standing in the back. It was silent, no one spoke, not even a baby cried out. There was the Judge sitting in the front of the room, the defendant, the solicitor, and the jury. I was a member of the jury that day. Everyone knew the truth, the defendant was innocent, and the evidence that was established was supportive and clear.
On January 10, 2017, at approximately 0153 hours, the defendant, Victor Manuel Cruz-Anaya, while at 1030 Ribaut Road Lot 6, Beaufort, South Carolina 29902, which is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Beaufort, did cause bodily injury upon the body of Sofia Chavez. The defendant commit this offense by placing his hands around the victim neck, choking her and by grabbing her wrist tightly restraining her from moving at her free will, during an argument. This action caused Chavez to fear for her safety. This altercation took place in the presence of a minor, 3 years of age. Affiant and others are witness to prove the same.
One day, I went to the superior court in Boston and to the District court. One of the cases that I observed at the Superior court was a case of assault and battery that happened at a train station on August 2014. an African American male who pushed a young male on a train track at South Station MBTA. During the court session, everyone gathered together to hear the assault and battery case that take place at the train station.
For the court observation assignment, I visited the Tolland County Courthouse. I went to court on Tuesday April 4th, 2017 from 11am to 12:30pm. The matters I observed in the courtroom regarded a restraining order from an ex-girlfriend to her ex-boyfriend. The details involved in the case included the welfare of their three-month-old baby and the custody battle.
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.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
Trial by Jury was first introduced during the reign of King Henry II as a mechanism to uncover the King’s rights, but it wasn’t until King Henry III that the jury was molded into a body of witnesses to call on their knowledge. Presently, our jury system is a body of witnesses that determine the guilt or innocence grounded upon a presentation of facts and evidence. The current structure of trial by jury is not sufficiently democratic. Jury panels are not selected democratically, but instead are chosen through a process call “voir dire” where attorneys and the judge ask a series of questions to establish the “impartiality” of the potential juror. This aspect of jury selection rejects the democratic notion that everyone is equally qualified to rule. The unanimity of the verdict is another key component of trial by juries that is not appropriately democratic because it forces people to fall under the coercion of others. This feature discards the fundamentals of democratic rule, which is a majority rule. These aspects of trial by jury do not ensure the effectiveness of a trial and actually hinder the possibility for a fair verdict. With the increasing number of trials all over the United States, reform of these components are necessary to guarantee the just and democratic ruling of trials.
The case was against a 31 year old illegal immigrant, Antonio Martinez-Nunez. Martinez-Nunez was the main suspect in a murder case involving Armando Castaneda. Castaneda was found dead in a parked car in Reynoldsburg, Ohio in August 2009. The cause of death was ruled as asphyxiation. In February of 2010, Martinez-Nunez, was arrested by border patrol, while trying to illegally re-enter the country via Texas. Upon his arrest, border patrol was advised that he was a suspect in the above murder case. Before being sent back to Ohio, Martinez-Nunez was questioned via phone by Reynoldsburg police. The questioning was done with the help of a Spanish interpreter. Martinez-Nunez’s statement led to a nine count
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.
The intellectual battle between police officers and suspects has been ongoing since laws were created. Who did it? Being one of the most popular questions around the globe. There is a multitude of different way to figure out who did it, but one of the most common, and often the only, piece of evidence and investigator can gather is a confession. To get these confessions investigators often use a harsh and aggressive method of interrogation known as the Reid technique. The Reid technique uses a multitude of morally questionable methods to gather a confession such as intimidation, telling the suspect that there is evidence placing them at the scene, and continually refusing to accept the denial of the suspect. These interrogations can also last
The courtroom is a place where cases are heard and deliberated as evidence is produced to prove whether the accused person is innocent or guilty. Different courtroom varies depending on the hierarchy and the type of cases, they deliberate upon in the courtroom. In the United States, the courts are closely interlinked through a hierarchical system at either the state or the federal level. Therefore, the court must have jurisdiction before it takes upon a case, deliberate, and come up with a judgment on it. The criminal case is different from the civil cases, especially when it comes to the court layout. In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues are learnt from the visit.
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