Examples Of Court Observation

The court observation which I attended was in a criminal court. The trial took place in the Municipal Court of Pennsylvania. The trial took place in room 608 on April 13th 2015 at 2:00 in the afternoon. I chose this room by walking around and randomly picking it. The judge was the Honorable Charles Erlique. The defense attorney was Robert Link and the Prosecutor was Edward Jeremella. The eye witness in this case was the police officer. The trial lasted for about two hours. This was the second time I had been to the court house. The first time I went the trial, it was almost ending and I did not get enough information. This case was a bench trial. The judge was coherent during the trial, he was respectful to both parties. At the end of the trial to get more information I asked the council who was watching the trial to give me a

summary. The council waited for the trial to be done and went up to the judge and introduced us. I told the judge why I was there and he told me more about the case. The case was very interesting and I was able to follow it very well for the most part.
The issue of this case was whether or not the defendant was going to be tried for carrying a weapon. The defendant had been seen on March 3rd 2014 by an on duty police officer. The police officer noticed that the defendant was driving the wrong way on a one way street. The police officer proceeds to follow him in his vehicle. The defendant realizes that he is being followed and tries to evade the police officer. While attempting to lose the officer the defendant runs through stops signs and red lights and eventually crashes into another vehicle. The defendant then gets out the automobile and attempts to flee on foot. However the police officer had called for backup and together they were able to apprehend the defendant. The police officer found multiple bags of cocaine and heroin on the person. The police officer then proceeded to check the car where he then found a nine millimeter Smith and Weston pistol.
The defendant had already pleaded guilty to the possession of illegal narcotics and was in court to fight the charge that the weapon was his. The defendant had been previously convicted of man slaughter. In the state of Philadelphia if someone has been convicted of man slaughter than it is illegal for that person to bear or have possession of arms. The consequents’ of person convicted of man slaughter bearing arms is five to ten years. The purpose of the prosecutor is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was the defendants responsibility and that he should be charged with carrying a fire arm. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof that leaves the judge firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. The defendant’s argument against the charges was that he had no idea that the vehicle which he was driving had a fire arm in it.
To prove his argument beyond reasonable doubt the prosecutor called the police officer who had initially started following the defendant for questioning. This type of questioning, when you are questioning your own witness is called direct questioning. One of the prosecutor’s main points was that the vehicle which the defendant was driving was immensly clean. He stated “The vehicle was completely clean, no cigarettes, no clothing, and no food wrappers.” His reason for highlighting that was that the defendant had to know that the fire arm was in the vehicle if he was able to clean it so well and so thoroughly. The other argument that the prosecutor stated was that the defendant had the intent to sell the illegal narcotics found on him so that the assumption is that the fire arm was also his. Another argument that the prosecutor made was that if a person is driving a vehicle they are responsible for everything in it.
The defense attorney then stated why the defendant was not responsible for the fire are in the vehicle.

The defense attorney’s first argument was that the vehicle itself was not owned by the defendant. The defendant was barrowing the automobile from another person. The attorney argued that the fire arm may not have even been the defendants. Going off the fact that because the vehicle was cleaned by the defendant, he may or may not have put the fire arm there is not proving it is his beyond reasonable doubt. The defense attorney also questioned the police officer that followed the defendant. This is called cross examination. He asked questions such as “How far were you driving behind the defendant?” “How was the defendant’s driving?” However the key question that was asked was, “Whether or not the police officer noticed the defendant lean over anytime towards the glove compartment where the fire arm was”. The police officer answered no he did not see him lean towards the glove box. The defense attorney then stated that the defendant was 5’7 and to reach the glove box to hide a fire arm he would have had to lean

over.
The Judge ruled that the defendant was in fact not guilty of carrying a fire arm. I do agree with ruling of this case and think it is a fair one. To me the prosecutor although had some valid points in his argument, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fire arm was the defendants. The defense attorney had valid points in his argument on how and why the defendant was not responsible for the fire arm being in the vehicle. The pivoting moment in this trial was when the defense attorney brought up the defendants height in relation to reaching the glove compartment of the vehicle. The police officer did not see him lean over so there is reasonable doubt that the fire arm is his and that he even knew about it.