Courtroom 302

Gonnerman appeals to the logic of the reader by following Browder’s anecdotes with supportive statistics and investigative findings from reputable sources. She uses the citation of evidence to give weight and help expand on the context of Browder’s experiences. This includes the excerpts of statistical information from studies, such as “in 2011 seventy-four percent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months”, which reinforces Browder’s personal experience with the Bronx court system and also clearly indicates that Browder’s circumstance is not an uncommon one. This also includes the citation of the court index card’s text, reading the list of the preposterous amount of delays requested by the prosecutor, which provides tangible and explicit evidence to the reader of the dysfunctionality of the Bronx’s court system, and also helps the reader empathize with Browder’s frustration.

Author Steve Bogira wrote a book based on his experiences over one ear in Chicago’s County Criminal Courthouse. His book Courtroom 302 goes through numerous cases and trials during the book, and gives the reader an inside look at what really is going on inside of the courtrooms. The key player in this book are the defendants, deputies, prosecutors, attorneys, and jurors. However, the judge of the courtroom, Judge Daniel Locallo is the main character most of the book is around, because he handles all of these cases.

A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent. The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain?

For the past 50 years, America’s criminal justice system has encountered several significant changes dealing with courts and policing. According to Marion and Oliver (2006), the historical Supreme Court rulings like Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona mold the way courts and law enforcement handle individuals charged with committing crimes. This paper will discuss the evolution of courts and law enforcement reflects the diverse and changing need for today’s population which is first importance, the urgency for cooperation and communication among criminal justice agencies and law enforcement within the country. Individuals must

The book Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court written by Amy Bach reflects upon “ordinary injustice” that members of society fall victim to by the American criminal justice system. In short, the phrase “ordinary injustice” comes from the improper acts that have become second nature to court officials but has yet to be explained and resolved by other actors in the court. It is noted in the text that “ordinary injustice results when a community of legal professionals becomes so accustomed to a pattern of lapses that they can no longer see their role in them” (Bach 2). This recurring pattern has been easy to identify by outsiders but difficult to handle by insiders of the court. Bach supports this idea by making clear that, “proving mistakes, both visible and invisible, [is] very difficult in the criminal justice system, even for those who are insiders” (258).

During this documentary, the viewers get an inside look at how criminal proceedings work. In the courtroom, the most important players are the prosecution, defense, and judge. The judge is in the room to make sure the proceeding runs smoothly and to settle any arguments that arise. The prosecution is there to accuse the defendant for whatever crime he or she has been convicted of. The defense is there to defend the person being convicted of the crime. There is also a bailiff who is there to oversee the court and make sure everyone there is safe. The bailiff will bring evidence form the defense or prosecution to the judge, as nobody is to approach the bench without the judge calling attorneys to the

The book Courtroom 302, written by Steve Bogira in 2005, is about the criminal courts in Chicago, IL. Steve Bogira graduated from Northwestern University, and is an excellent reporter for the Chicago Review. Courtroom 302 is story told mainly from through Steve Bogira’s observations. Bogira observes a courtroom (Courtroom 302), and basically the entire justice system process from beginning to end. The courtroom that Bogira observes is in the control of Judge Daniel Locallo. Judge Locallo helps give Bogira an all access view, plus vital personal thoughts and feelings about issues and events that he has dealt with; and Bogira has observed. Judge Locallo is not the only person that expresses personal information. Many employees of the

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

Everyone has heard of the OJ Simpson court case – a rich and famous man is accused of murdering his ex wife and despite an overwhelming amount of evidence presented against him, he somehow manages to be found not guilty. Many people find themselves wondering how that could possibly happen. Was his defense team simply that good? Were there mistakes made? Was he actually innocent? Simpson’s case is not the only one that has yielded such a strange outcome because of his status and stellar defense team, and certainly not the only court case to cause such an uproar in the media. Martha Stewart’s 2001 case, Scott Peterson’s 2004 case, and Lorena Bobbitt’s 1994 case are all examples of court trials that sparked interest in the eye of America.

In the case sub judice, Floyd argues that the admission of the RAPID, gate access, and Detective Gibson’s reports, as well as the testimony of Tyler constitute hearsay that violate his procedural due process rights. We are not persuaded. First, the RAPID reports appear to be highly probative as it suggests that Floyd was engaged in the sale of manhole covers on dates that correspond with suspicious visits to the County facility. Floyd argues that it is unclear who maintains RAPID and points to inconsistences between the database and the scale tickets. The nature of these records, however, do not suggest that they are so unreliable so as to be inadmissable as a matter of law. Indeed, the records in the database appear to be made within

Justice is supposed to be blind or, in other words, not play favorites. In this novel, it's fair to say that the justice system by no means works in that way, should it work in any way at all. Examples of the many ways that the institutions, and the people working for them, supposedly to uphold the law and see that justice is conducted fairly, have failed the black community frequently as a direct result of racial prejudice can be found in the stories told by the old men as they are questioned by the Sheriff, Mapes. The stories told are set, not within the era of transition the tellers are currently in, but in an earlier era of white supremacy.

Sitting in on a trial, truly opened my eyes to the reality of the world we live in. In other words, crime happens everyday, all around us. Truthfully, I felt bad for the defendant, for he was not expecting 35 college students to sit on his trial, though it is open to the public. After reading Crook County, I found multiple similarities and differences between the book and the trial I went to. For example, Crook County, states the division between the minority and white individuals. There is glass dividing them, which creates the race division. However, in Williamsport, there is no distinct division of race, for the trial was open to the public and there is no assigned seating.

For my court visit, I attenened cases at the Portage County municipal court in Ravenna, Ohio. I went on March 28, 2018 from 1:00 to 2:30 and listened to a variety of pretrial cases. The judge of the courtroom I sat in was Judge Barbara Oswick. The public defense attorney name was Joe Messuci. The cases that I watched in the courtroom where people that had been arrested and in jail. Many of the cases there was a public defense attorney representing the defendant. They had the defendants on a camera at the jail and the judge would tell them what charges were against them. They were very quick cases. The judge would read the charges and then ask them if they were guilty or not guilty. All of the cases the defendant was found guilty.

Now that I have been attending court regularly for my internship, I now have a pretty good grasp on how things work in this particular court. I find myself answering my own questions, and I really have a feel for how the court system works. It is quite interesting, and every day is something new which is a significant trait that many places do not hold. I still dislike family court, as it is tedious, but criminal court is always a pleasure. Since I have last written, I have seen charges from robberies to drugs to assaults to sex offenders. It’s interesting to observe how different charges come with different circumstances and punishments, and also noteworthy how the judges sentencing styles differ.

On July 31, 2017, I remember leaving early from band camp to observe the courtroom in order to write this paper. I pulled up the address of the courtroom on google maps, and I followed the direction to evacuate myself out of the school parking lot. I had made two wrong turns due to my horrible sense of directions, but I was still able to get to my final destination on time. The parking lot was packed at the Greene County Courthouse, therefore I had to park across the street which was still pretty packed. Being my first time at the Courthouse, I was completely clueless that there would be two officers performing security checks. Now writing this paper, I felt so ignorant not knowing that there would be some type of security involved when entering the county courthouse. The officer holds on to my keys and my purse was slowly being transported through the scanner. I, on the other hand, had to walk through a metal door scan. After I was released, I saw a big TV with judges names, times of the day, division numbers, and the names of cases. I went to Division 26, which is Judge Carrier’s room, and I was planning on watching the trial that was supposed to begin at 3 O'clock. On my way there I was quite interested at the structure of the building. The elevator could transport to all three floors, but the stairs only connect the first and the second floor. In order to get from the second floor to the third floor, it is impossible unless you take the elevator. It could be that the