Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Legal System and Society
The court system chapter2
The criminal court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For the first mock trial held in class, the case of the stolen lunch, I did not have a large role. I chose to be a part of the jury, which I feel gave me an immense feeling of responsibility and really allowed me to deeply analyze the case as it was being presented. Within this case, Mary Ovechkin, the plaintiff, had claimed that her lunch had been stolen and ate by the defendant, Sammy Crosby. My first expectation of this case, before it had actually started, was that the defense and prosecution would each have time to present their cases. I expected both sides to question those who were involved, such as the witnesses, defendant, and plaintiff. Then I expected to have to come up with my own verdict to share with the rest of the jury based on the evidence presented. Based on my role, I expected to learn how the jury reaches their decisions. As the case proceeded, I expected Mary to win the case. I reached this conclusion after all of the evidence was presented because there were …show more content…
I chose to be a witness, which made me feel more involved in the action of the case. This role came with a sense of responsibility because I had to be sure that I was presenting accurate information to the court so a reasonable judgement could be made. Within this case, the defendant McCauley Malkin had been charged with a felony grand theft auto and a felony receiving stolen property. He supposedly stole a 2013 red Corvette from Jets Car Sales, owned by Michael Zumboni. As a witness, I didn’t expect to have any massive involvement in the case rather than presenting my evidence when I would be called up for questioning. I expected to learn what it would be like to actually get questioned in the court in front of everyone and what it would be like to get asked questions you may not have an immediate answer
I have been called as a witness for Johnny Cade because I will testify that Johnny Cade is not guilty for the murder of Bob Sheldon
This stage is an examination of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Ideally, voir dire will result in an impartial jury for the trial of the accused. On March 4, 2004 jury selection began for the trial of Scott Peterson. Nearly 100 potential jurors began answering questionnaires about their views on the death penalty and their opinions on extramarital affairs. The nearly 30-page questionnaire given to prospective jurors also included questions as whether they read Field and Stream, what stickers grace their car bumpers and whether they have lost a child. On April 14, 2004 Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed an unidentified Redwood City woman after a brief meeting in his chambers. Defense attorney Mark Geragos two weeks early had accused the retired secretary of bragging to her friends on a bus trip to Reno, Nevada, that she has "passed the test" to get on Peterson's jury and that Peterson was "guilty as hell" and would "get what's due him." May 28, 2004 six men and six women were selected for Scott Peterson's murder trial all said they would be willing to sentence him to death if they convict him of killing his wife and the couple's fetus.
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,...
“I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks” (Lee 304). Harper Lee is the renowned author of To Kill a Mockingbird which was inspired by the real events of the Scottsboro Trials. Throughout her novel, Lee indirectly references the case by creating characters, events, and symbols that resemble and contrast the case. These elements allow the novel to emerge with a more realistic and historic plot. In particular, the similarities and differences between Judge Horton and Judge Taylor, Victoria and Mayella, and the atmosphere of the courtroom are most prevalent. By examining these components one will be able to respect the historical features present in Harper Lee’s fictional literary phenomenon, To Kill a Mockingbird.
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
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 criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
All jurors in this particular case participated and took an active role, yet J1, J4, J7, J8, J12 were the most vocal. J1, J4, J7, and J8 had very strong personalities and naturally appeared to want to be active in the deliberations. J2 appeared to have a strong personality as well, but soon made their mind up about the situation. J1 and J7 as will be discussed later on appear to be the most similar and often support and defend each other throughout the jury deliberation. J12 was active merely because she had to out of self-defense. J12 was the only juror that did not agree with the majority’s conclusions about Ducic and constantly had to defend herself and provide rebuttals with little support from the other jurors. Nevertheless, it appears jurors with strong opinions on the case participate more in the ...
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
The right to a trial by jury is one of the most fundamental concepts on which the American justice system rests. It had been in the English common law practice for several centuries and the American founders deemed in necessary to continue the practice and draft it into the United States Constitution. Prior to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guaranteed trial by jury for all crimes except impeachment. In 1968 the Supreme Court solidified this right in Duncan v. Louisiana stating that juries are a necessary check to g...
For my research paper I decided to observe at the North Justice Center in Fullerton, CA for the morning session. My goal entering there was to watch the process of a criminal trial since I felt that would be the most interesting and would allow me the opportunity to witness all the working parts of our justice system in action. While waiting for the criminal trial to open its doors and start, I managed to come across a post- arraignment court, where I was able to watch a different side of our criminal justice system. This is the side that enforces the punishment and makes sure that restitution is paid for whatever crime was committed. By far the most interesting thing I took from this experience was the differences in how the judges conducted themselves in their courtrooms and the amount of discretion that they were allowed to use. For this paper I will be going over what I observed in both the post-arraignment court and the criminal trial and analyze my findings in a sociological context.
Most countries in the world today do not use juries, and only a small percentage of cases in the United States are decided by juries. So it has been proven successful and holding trials without juries are certainly a possibility for our future. In may in fact be in society’s best interest to change or rather improve a system that is outdated and doesn’t always serve the people justice. A person has a right to choose between a jury of his peers of a bench (judge only) trial. It’s likely that citizens may prefer a jury trial as they may feel that pool of random citizens may be less critical or harsh than a judge, but in all honesty, if we’re talking about fairness, a judge who is an informed and trained professional definitely has a better idea of how to sentence a person on trial and looks at the evidence in a holistic way. A bench trial is better because it’s more efficient and cost-effective, judges are well-educated professionals, and juries may be biased or incompetent.
In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues learnt from the visit. In the courtroom, the judge was presiding over the court, and because the matters were on criminal cases there were jurors. This jury received instructions from the judge about the law, as they were nonprofessional. A jury consists of twelve persons when it comes to serious felonies and six members when it is only a misdemeanor. The reason why the judge gave them the facts on the law was to help them deliberate after the case was over to establish whether the accused person was guilty or not.
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