Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criminal investigation case studies
Role of judges in the court system
Role of judges in the court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Criminal investigation case studies
In the month of February, i visited the Superior Court of Bakersfield California. I sat down on the trial of Timberlake vs People. This trail was murder and gang related. The man being charged was a 33 years old and his name was Paul Timberlake, who was suspicious of committing a murder. The judge that over saw the trail was John R. Brownlee. The District Attorney was Mr. Russel. Lastly, The Public Defender was Mr. Lucard. As i opened the door to the trail room, I noticed the room was full of seriousness. Everyone had a blank facial expression and showed no signs of joy. I made my way to the audience seating and sat down quietly. The Judge called forth the prosecutor. The prosecutor order two police officers to come inside the trail to serve as witnesses. Once they came inside, he played a video of a …show more content…
surveillance camera. The camera had caught the whole crime scene. The video was 12 minutes long and we watched it from start to finish. When the video began, Mr.
Timberlake was calm and serious. As the video approached the shooting incident, he began to cry silently and turned his back to the video. When the video ended, the prosecutor showed pictures of the victim’s autopsy. The pictures showed three distinct bullet holes on the man’s body. He had two on his head and one on his chest. In addition, the man had a tattoo that said “Don’t watch me watch your bitch”. I found this funny and laughed to myself. While these pictures were being presented, the two cops were being questioned by the prosecutor. The police officers answered his questions in a professional manner. Once the prosecutor finished questioning the officers, he ended his turn and dismissed them. On a side note, i notice that everyone had a turn to speak. No one spoke out of turn. Everyone had to wait for the judge to allow an individual to speak. After the prosecutor ended his turn, the judge dismissed everyone and order the jury to return on Monday. The whole court trip wasn’t as boring as I thought. I enjoyed the scene and the tension between the two opposing parties. Overall it was a very pleasing experience to sit down in a
trial.
Courtroom 302 is one of the busiest courtrooms in the United States and that isn’t always the case, but the processes are still the same. According to our textbook, (Neubauer, D.W. & Fradella, H.F., 2017, p. 13) “The overwhelming majority of crimes involve burglary and theft.” Which Courtroom 309 gives many cases that involved some sort of theft or robbery, like the case that mentioned earlier. It also gives a great representation of the flaws that our criminal justice system
“Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it’s set a rolling it must increase (Charles Caleb Colton).” Colton describes that once corruption has begun, it is difficult to stop. Corruption has existed in this country, let alone this very planet, since the beginning of time. With corruption involves: money, power, and favoritism. Many people argue today that racism is still a major problem to overcome in today’s legal system. American author (and local Chicago resident) Steve Bogira jumps into the center of the United States justice system and tells the story of what happens in a typical year for the Cook Country Criminal Courthouse, which has been noted as one of the most hectic and busiest felony courthouses in the entire country. After getting permission from one of the courthouse judges’ (Judge Locallo) he was allowed to venture in and get eyewitness accounts of what the American Legal System is and how it operates. Not only did he get access to the courtroom but: Locallo’s chambers, staff, even his own home. In this book we get to read first hand account of how America handles issues like: how money and power play in the court, the favoritism towards certain ethnic groups, and the façade that has to be put on by both the defendants and Cook County Workers,
After a lengthy two hundred and fifty-two-day trial “not guilty” were the words that left the world in shock. O.J Simpson was your typical golden boy. He had it all, the nice car, the football career, and his kids. Unfortunately, this all came to an end when two bodies came to be spotted deceased in Nicole Browns front yard and was a gruesome sight. O. J’s ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman both found with brutal stab marks. Unfortunately, all his glory days now brought to an end, he went from playing on the field to begging for his freedom when becoming the main suspect of their murders. Since this trial has not only altered the way Americans viewed celebrities, but it also racially divided society,
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
In the discussion of the Trials of Darryl Hunt, The Trials of Darryl Hunt is one of those stories you find yourself watching on the edge of your seat, thinking that this cannot be possibly true. I observed an documentary of the brutal rape and murder in the South by a wrongfully convicted man named Darryl Hunt, which spent twenty years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Hunt spent the next 20 years of his life trying to prove his innocence more than a decade of his struggle. The most interested aspect about the Darryl Hunt case is how the first trial featured an enormous amount of errors by the investigation and prosecution teams. I saw how that there was no physical evidence, a photo lineup was bungled, timelines didn’t match, and witnesses were very unreliable.
Simpson case was an extraordinary example of the importance of ethical considerations during any investigative process. It was very unique, in that O.J Simpson, at the time, was very wealthy and was able to afford a great defense team (Gordon III, 1997). This case was also very unique, in that the extensive experience of the defense team was able to highlight their perspective on the poor handling of evidence and the costly mistakes made by the prosecution. It opened the eyes of the LAPD and forensic entities across the country (Gordon III, 1997). The decision of the jury was not a reflection of the prosecutions’ lack of evidence, however, it was the unethical behavior of the investigators involved, the questionability of the handling of the evidence by investigators and forensic analysts (Gordon III,
A case in which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened. “. if not for bystander Feidin Santana’s video casting doubt on office Michael Slagers version of events, he may not have quickly been charged with murder.” Imagine if this man would have been set free only to think getting away with murder is easy. Seeming that a person is an employee of the law, jurors’ do not expect them to lie.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
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 jury’s decision however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color than actual evidence from the case. I wanted to avoid this disease, but it is easily spread from one person to another. It made me angry that an innocent man was convicted for something he did not even do. He was convicted because of his skin color and nothing else. When the judge asked us to leave the courtroom to make a decision, we stayed o...
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
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
“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.
Identity-“Ones personal qualities.”Identiy is something only he or she can fully define. My uncle says I am affectionate,cheerful, and calm. My grandmother sees me as slim, pretty and sweet. My dad described me as perky, cheerful and happy, my mom says beautiful, gentle, and self-conscious. These adjectives describe me accurately, yet they are only abstract versions of me. Adjectives cannot begin to describe me and I aknowlege these descriptions for what they are, a condensed translation from my outward self to the world. It is impossible for anyone to understand me completely because nobody has experienced the things I have. My mother has never cherished a raggedy doll named Katie and my father never spent hours upon hours making collages and scrap books for his future children. My uncle never hid in the back of a pick-up-truck and traveled four hours to New York and my grandmother has never walked hours in the rain looking for the Queen of England. My identity is something only I can define.
David works as a gardener, people say he is kind and passive. In recent days family and friends have realized his behaviour had changed. While David was at a clients house he and the client were in an argument which escalated to the point where he beat her to death. In his trial the prosecutor argued and said he had lost his temper and beat the client to death which resulted David to life in prison.
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