Courtroom Observation Essay

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 I observed the Court of Common Pleas in Athens, Ohio for an hour and a half. Overseen by Judge Pat Lang in “Courtroom B.” I arrived to the courthouse around 8:55 a.m. I entered the building from the right side, underneath the stairs. To my immediate right, there was an officer and a metal detector I had to walk through before coming any further. I put the loose things I was carrying through the x-ray conveyor belt and collected them on the other side. I asked the officer where Courtroom B was and he kindly directed me to the 3rd floor. I took the elevator to the third floor and when the doors opened I walked out and to the left. There was one other person on the floor at the time and sitting by the doors of courtroom B. It was very quiet in the building, I walked through the

I attended the District Court at 201 West Picacho Ave on March 7, 2011. I sat in on judge Mike Murphy's court. Judge Murphy started court promptly at 9:00 a.m. but before I got into the court I had to wait in a long line of about 30 people. then when I finally got to the court house door I had to go through a metal detector where I had to take off my belt and shoes and everything metal on my persons. Then I asked one of the officers working the metal dictator how I could ask to sit in on a criminal court that was going on this morning. She then directed me to court room four. I asked the bailiff if it was ok for me to sit in on court today for my criminal justice class, and if the case where criminal matters. The bailiff then told me that

Bogira paints a portrait of some of the more personal and nuanced day-to-day activities that go into courtroom behavior and decision making. Describe some of the often overlooked aspects of day-to-day court operations (i.e., judges background, public pressures, defense attorney and prosecutorial ambitions, etc.) and how they may affect court outcomes for defendants. Bogira paints a portrait of the real side of the law and after reading Courtroom 302 I’m applauded at the things I’ve read. Bogira’s showed a different side to prosecutors, detectives, and judges detailing the little to no interest they had in righting the wrongs caused by the court.

2008 1L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law, White V. Gibbs CA# -8776-CV285.

Since the series revolves around real life events that occurred, it is quite accurate how the criminal justice is represented. In the series, we see everything that we would see in the criminal justice field, for instance the courtroom actors such as the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, bailiffs, courtroom clerk, and jury. Everyone in the O.J. Simpson was important and they all received more attention than they should have, but the ones who got the most attention and had the biggest role in this case was the jury. Jury selection is selected from the eligible population over the age of 18 who has complied from the DMV. There is a voir dire that process by which jury members are selected, attorneys and judge seek to gain information about

A trial can be deemed unfair if the jury is swayed by emotions. Strong emotions such as prejudice, disgust, confusion, vengeance and stubbornness can affect the outcome of a case. If emotions change the outcome rather than actual evidence presented to the jury, the trial will be unfair to the defendant.

On Thursday November 17th, 2005 we attempted to go and see a trial at the Oakland County Circuit Court. An attorney friend advised us to go to the Macomb Circuit Court that Thursday, but due to a scheduling conflict we chose to go the Oakland County Court. We were also advised to go around 1:00 p.m. because the court would commence again after lunch. We arrived to the court at 12:45 and after passing through security we quickly went to the fifth floor courtrooms to find a trial. Upon reaching the fifth floor we found that on that particular Thursday there were several pre-trials being held instead of a single trial.

The courtroom work group consists of individuals who work together to successfully prosecute a case, such as criminal prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and probation officers. The courtroom work group, then, carries the case through the justice system to its logical conclusion dismissal, conviction, and failure to convict. Although the public is set to believe that the judge makes all the principal decisions in the court, he or she normally accepts bail recommendations from prosecutors, plea-bargains from defense attorneys, and sentence recommendations from probation officers. Defense attorneys, private or appointed, ensure that the defendant's rights are protected and they are to defend their client throughout all criminal proceedings.

On Friday, March 23, 2017, I observed activities at the C.J.C. from 8:05 a.m. till 12:30 p.m. I had opportunities to view Magistrate Rice preside over bail hearings, Judge Thomas Gerhet preside over a trial and conduct ‘Drug Court’ progress hearings, and Judge Frank Palumbo conduct probation hearings. Although, I witnessed over 26 different hearings, due to assignment constraints this paper will focus largely on one case and

I was still filled with anticipation and was quite surprised at the differences between my first and second experience. I was formally dressed and did not really blend in with anyone else sitting in the courtroom. The attorneys seemed to come and go as they pleased, with no deference or respect for the proceedings in session.

In the electronic world that we live in, every aspect of life can be broadcast across the country in seconds. This aspect is even more realistic when cameras are front and center in American courtrooms. Each morning and afternoon we turn on the television, reality television takes over and civil lawsuits or divorces are being broadcast on shows such as the Judge Judy Show, Judge Brown Show, Judge Greg Mathis Show or Divorce Court. Many people, young and old, are exposed to these reality shows believing what they see is the “real” criminal justice system at

Courtroom Observation Review of the 2008 2L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law

Although I had arrived after the case had begun, I had a little bit of background knowledge and could easily follow what was going on. The case was between Joseph B. McCarthy and his ex-wife, Annie J. Ashment McCarthy. Joseph was the defendant, and Annie was the plaintiff. Annie had a lawyer by her side, and Joseph stood alone. Annie’s lawyer was Brad E. Macdonald. The defendant had failed to pay child support and owed his ex-wife an arrearage of thirty-thousand dollars.

I went to the court on October 13, around 10:30. When I first walked in there were a lot of people there I wasn’t expecting that at all. Security was higher than at the magistrate court. There were attorneys there but they stand next to there defendants at all times since it was still assembly justice so the trials didn’t go on for days if the most for about 30 minutes. The first case I had a chance was already on its way so I don’t know how long it had been going on for. The defendant was wearing a dark blue jump suit. As well as he had some chains aournd his waist

The defendant’s tardiness, as well as his demeanor-very nonchalant- in court, made him appear to be unconcerned with the fact that he was on trial. At one point I thought he was going to fall asleep. This definitely had an impact on his impression on the jurors as they did not seem happy with his behavior and neither was the judge.