Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The psychology of the court room
Courtroom experience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The psychology of the court room
As someone who watches a lot of TV I like to pretend I know a lot about what goes on in courtrooms, however the idea of going to an actual courthouse to sit in on a real-life trial was more than a little daunting to me. And the idea of going down there alone was even worse. But it was a fear that I needed to conquer (though I did recruit my sister to come along with me) and I am extremely grateful that I was pushed to experience a real courtroom trial because I never would have guessed how different it could be. On Thursday, April 14, I headed downtown and immediately found the courthouse to be different than expected. Movies and TV shows portray court houses as large buildings often either made of bright white stone or some sort of old brick. And without fail, they always have a wide staircase leading up that seems to be packed with paparazzi and reporters. While I was not expecting a staircase lined with photographers, I definitely pictured a building that was a little flashier. With its dingy, nondescript walls, there was nothing that drew me to the building except for my GPS that labeled it as the King County Courthouse. The exterior of the building brought me back down to earth a bit, reminding me …show more content…
The judge instructed both attorneys on what types of language would and would not be allowed in court. As part of the jury instructions, both parties were told to use vague language, saying only enough to make the jury careful, with no discussion of the level of crime (first-degree, etc.) allowed. In addition, any talk of a possibility of mental health was instructed to be “sanitized,” changing a concern for the mental health of the defendant to a concern for his well-being. Courts that are portrayed in Hollywood are full of charged language, so to have a real trial to put so much effort into preventing bias was just another example of how things are different in the
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
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.
A whirlwind of controversy arose in November 2002, when Judge Ted Poe, ruled that PBS’s Frontline could film jury deliberations in the trial of Cedric Harrison, 17, who faces the death penalty for allegedly killing a man during a car-jacking. In validating his ruling, Poe held that “cameras in courts keep the system honest” and are an important tool for civic education.1 Poe approved Frontline’s proposal, in which an unobtrusive ceiling camera would be used and no full-time cameraman would be necessary. Frontline had planned to edit the deliberations and broadcast them approximately one year following the verdict as part of a two-to-three hour documentary that would spotlight Harris County, whose juries have sentenced more people to death than juries in any other county in the U.S.2
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
For my court ethnography I observed plea, bail, and family court in the city of Milton. However, it was called the Ontario superior court of justice. When I first entered a court it looked exactly like what I had seen in movies. The court setup, the vernacular used, and the customs of the court employees were exactly like what mainstream media has displayed to the public over the years. Entering the court, symbols of justice were exhibited everywhere in the courtroom. In the courtroom all kinds of cases were occurring, and people from all types of backgrounds were involved. Observing the inner workings of our justice system gave me invaluable insight on how law and order is preserved in our society. Furthermore, I also got to witness the specific
Hoiberg, B., & Stires, L. (1973). The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3(3), 267-275.
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.
I attended the Circuit Court at 140 Blountville Bypass Blountville, TN on April 24th, 2014. I sat in on Judge Robert Montgomery’s court. Judge Montgomery started court promptly at 9:00 a.m. After going through the metal detectors, I asked the officer working the metal dictator if I could ask to sit in on a criminal court that was going on that morning. He then directed me to the printed docket on the table in the waiting area. The docket is the official schedule of proceedings in lawsuits pending in a court of law. Courtroom 1 had seven pages of cases ranging from violations of probation to rape of a child and Courtroom 2 had one jury trial case of a vehicular homicide that finished the day before. I walked into the administration office and asked if I could get a copy of the docket for when I sit in on court that day for my Legal Process class. I waited until the bailiff called everyone in, and I went in as well and took a seat in the front row in the middle next to another classmate. After waiting a few minutes the bailiff tells everyone to rise while Judge Robert Montgomery entered the courtroom to begin the proceedings.
“Not only was the trial heavily covered; it changed its nature to accommodate the coverage.” This case drastically altered the scale and the hype of any media until that time. The presiding judge, allowed radio lines into the courtroom, paused proceedings to allow photographers time to snap a shot, and even moved the entire trial outside to allow every person a chance to view it. The fact that this “media event” was probably the most heavily covered hype of it’s time, but that the hype became more important than the trial itself. “The real trial, it was agreed, was taking place in the newspapers. The things the jury never got exposed to got the heaviest emphasis around the nation.” Newspapers and magazines carried innumerable articles and cartoons on the case, and telegraph operators wired stories to Europe and Australia. For the first time news of an American trial was nationally broadcast by radio, while thousands of people came to Dayton itself to take in what became a virtual carnival, complete with sideshows.
As a police officer, I have been to countless court cases and I already knew what to expect from all that were involved. Being in the galley as an observer is entirely different than
It’s Time to Remove Cameras from the Courtroom! Is Judy still keeping audiences entertained by giving the court system a new attitude? Will court systems ever get back to their dignity? Not as long as the cameras still work. Cameras in the courtroom have been very beneficial in certain cases, but it has caused a lot of harm.
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