This court visit was very interesting and a great experience. My friends and I visited the King County Superior Court in Seattle from around 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. We were fortunate enough to visit the court on the same day that a few testimonies were being held regarding the 2014 Seattle Pacific University (SPU) shooting. Though it was recommended to view a civil trial such as one pertaining to business matters, we wanted to take advantage of such a fascinating and quite rare case here in King County. This case was “State v. Aaron Ybarra”, case number 14-1-02901-9. The judge presiding the case was Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers. The State was being represented by Senior Deputy Prosecutors Jessica Berliner and Kristin Richardson, while Defense …show more content…
From the moment we walked in, I felt fairly excited and I noticed a big sense of tension in the room through the visitors and in the witnesses. This was my actually my first time inside of a public courtroom so it was something very new to me. For such a large and highly reported trial, I expected the courtroom to be bigger or to at least contain more seating area for spectators. When we arrived, Ybarra’s mother was just taking the stand to testify and be questioned by one of the prosecutors. The state was questioning and focusing a lot on how he felt and acted leading up to the day of the shooting and on the day of the shooting. It was a very emotional testimony for his mother. She was holding a microphone and could not hold back tears at times while she was speaking. Since Ybarra pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, his mental capacity and wellness was the main focus during this trial and from what I have read, the next days as well. While his mother was testifying, Aaron Ybarra had no change in reaction whatsoever. He had a straight face and did not make any movements or change his expression in the slightest. After his mother took the stand, Defense Attorney Brandes, got Ybarra’s second or third
Help Arrives During the winter of 1999, when all hope that his appeal would be heard became lost, Baltovich decided to contact James Lockyer, a founding director of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC), to take carriage of his appeal. The AIDWYC, led by James Lockyer, looked into Baltovich’s case and found numerous problems that were involved in the court proceedings. Two of the biggest problems that they encountered were the reliability of the testimonies from the witnesses, which led the jury to rely too much on information that had a high chance of being false, and the bias point of view of the judge, which led other jury members to follow along with the judge instead of making their own decisions. Many of these issues were brought to the attention of the Ontario Court of
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
...t his the evidence in front of a jury. Still believing in his innocence Jeff is filing for parole after fourteen years of eligibility. He is hoping to meet parole board criteria so he can be released on parole.
Bicks, M. (Director). (2004). In the jury room: The State of Ohio vs Mark Ducic: ABC News.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Civilrights.org. (2002, April 13). Justice on trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil RightsEducation Fund. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from Civilrights.org Web site: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/
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.
The people directly involved with this case are Judge Lance Ito, the prosecution lawyers, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, the defense lawyers, Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro and Robert Blasier , the jury and the defendant, O.J. Simpson. The families of the victims have also been present in the courtroom, as well as other spectators and news media. This case has heard one hundred and twenty witnesses over a nine month period.
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 defendant within the United States v. Jared Lee Lougher case was charged in federal court with the attempted assignation and attempted murder of federal employees, which came as a result of his shooting spree at the Safeway Supermarket, located in Tucson, Arizona. The shooting occurred on January 8th of 2011 and resulted in the deaths of six individuals and the injury of 13 individuals; the alleged target of the attack was said to be “[Representative] Gabrielle Giffords,” whom was among the injured (Audi, 2011). In addition, among the injured was “Federal Judge John Roll and Giffords aide Gabriel Zimmerman” (Audi, 2011). Furthermore, due to Judge John Roll being a federal judge, Loughner...
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.
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
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.
It was the night of June 12, 1994, a woman and her long time male friend are murdered in cold blood. The victims, Nicole Brown Simpson, her neck cut so savagely it was almost severed from her body and Ronald Goldman, stabbed repeatedly, nearly 30 times. The accused, her ex-husband and football star, Orenthan James Simpson, better known as O.J. Simpson. During the trial, a trial that consisted of 150 witnesses, lasted 133 days and cost in the ball park of 15 million dollars, there were many questions asked and even more questions left unanswered (Douglas).
She explained that his involvement in the crime was not excessive and that it was his brother who was the leader. She went on to describe his eight previous arrests for crimes like robbery and cocaine possession. Given his long history she said she was not surprised to see him involved in this kind of case. Because of his other charges I thought the prosecutor was going to suggest the higher end of the sentencing guidelines. However, as she continued I realized I was incorrect. Instead of focusing on his previous crimes she talked about how he needed rehabilitation. She emphasized recovery from his current lifestyle more than sending him to prison again. She brought up his involvement in his church and his successful marriage and questioned why he would throw all of that away. She also suggested that he turn to his church and his wife for support and to aid him in his battle with addiction. Throughout the case, the prosecutor was compassionate and seemed more like a disappointed parent to the defendant rather than angry. The one time the prosecutor did act somewhat harsh was towards the middle of her statement. She brought up the fact that the defendant had previous medical conditions such as a stab and shot wounds. She suggested that the defense had asked for these injuries to be taken into account when the sentence was decided on. She was adamant that the court should not take