Debate Court Observation Essay

The dual court system in the United States consists of a federal court system and a state court system. The judicial branch is responsible for deciding the meaning of laws, determining how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the constitution.

We attended the ACT Magistrates Court on 6th October 2017. We observed a criminal case.

When I had told my friends I couldn’t eat breakfast with them on Monday morning they gave me a puzzled look, as we always eat breakfast everyday together. After some confusion I had to tell them sorry I can’t, I have to go to court. I got even more confusion. They probably thought “Oh no what has she done or what happened?” but truth soon be told that I was going there just to watch some court cases. Upon telling them that it was just for an assignment, they all looked relieved that they hadn’t befriended a convict in their first 2 months of college.

Through my observations of all three courts, it was plain that all players present in the courtroom were there to administer justice and maintain the equity of our society. By providing a competent and impartial governing body to conduct the trial, but also by doing so: in a timely and thorough manner, while protecting the accused’s inherent rights, and by educating those partaking in the process as well as making educated decisions themselves.

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

Vincent clerked at the Orleans District Attorney’s office for approximately two years while in law school and preparing for the Bar examination. During his time as a clerk, I encountered two personal friends who were Assistant District Attorneys on separate occasions. Both Assistant District Attorneys praised Vincent’s work ethic, professionalism and quality of work. One even stated that the Assistant District Attorneys competed for Vincent’s assistance on their cases. Vincent has demonstrated through work experience that he is capable of developing into a competent attorney.

They say justice is blind. Laws are made only to protect the interest of the wealthy. Anyone can become a judge, one does not necessarily have to attend school to do so. These are just a few myths about our judicial system, some of which that hold some truth, and others that are inaccurate. In this paper, I will provide history about the type of court structure in Illinois, the process in which judges and lawyers are selected within the state, and how judges and lawyers are disciplined.

Next, the appointment power given to the president is another caveat of the institutional constraint. This constraint showed strong support for the constrained court view in the case of Obergefell v Hodges because the vague laws involved in this case gave room for personal opinions from the justices to influence their decision. Of course, the factor of ideological influence did create an argument for the dynamic court view as it related to doctrine, but in the case of institutional constraint, these ideological influences are seen as a result of institutional powers given to the president. The appointment power gives power outside of the courts and let’s another branch of government influence the decisions of the court by choosing justices which reflect their own ideological beliefs. So, the decision was split along ideological lines because of the influence that previous presidents had on the courts, which promotes the constrained court view as an institutional constraint.

Facts: The respondent Jeffery Landrigan was convicted of murder, during his incarceration he stabbed and killed an inmate. Three years later, Mr. Landrigan escaped prison and killed Chester Dyer. Mr. Landrigan was found guilty of second degree murder, burglary, and felony murder. During the sentencing phase of the trial, Mr. Landrigan counsel attempted to present mitigating evidence to the judge. The mitigating evidence was Mr. Landrigan ex-wife, and birth mother, whom were not allowed to testify. Mr. Landrigan counsel explained to the judge, that his client did not want any testimony from his family. Mr. Landrigan counsel tried to explain the importance of both witness but Mr. Landrigan did not allow him to speak (counsel). The judge asked Mr. Landrigan if he had anything to add before he sentenced him. The defendant said to give him the death penalty. The trial judge sentenced Landrigan to death. After the trial, Landrigan filed a notion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Landrigan petitioned for habeas corpus, challenging the state court for not allowing mitigating evidence to be presented under the death penalty act of 1996.

On Friday, April, 4, 2014, I observed the Vanderburgh County Superior Court to observe different family law cases. The cases I heard involved contempt of court for failing to pay child support, failure to appear for a court appointed drug test, birth certificate affidavit, request for contest hearing time, and an issue of paternity case. Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Corcoran was presiding over the family court hearings. When entering the courthouse, I was greeted by security and advised to remove any cell phones, and/or, any other items that would trigger a metal detector. After this, I proceeded straight to look for the family courtroom. After roaming around mindlessly for a couple minutes, I decided to ask the courthouse officer monitoring

among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in

For my observation, I chose to observe a civil case that had to do with a divorce. I did some research on the cases, and chose one that was similar to an experience I went through. My parents are currently separated, and my father simply refused to pay child support. He lives outside of the state, so it was hard for my mother to have face to face confrontation with him. She got tired of raising three kids on her own, and finally decided to take him to court. I was required to serve as a witness. This took place in 2009, so I was thirteen years old and didn’t really understand much of what was going on. I timidly walked to the stand and was sworn in. I then answered the questions the attorney asked me.

That same day I headed down to the magistrate court I had been here before. This court is more of assembly line justice sine each case is probably like 5 minutes long. The judges name was locatell. The first case I heard was a male he was being charged with reckless driving. The judge then tells him that is a 5 day minimum in jail. At this point u enter a plea he entedred a not guilty plead. After he please there is a bench trail and there will be a posector and see what you sentence will be and the cop that issued the ticket will be there so that both stories can be heard. What I also noticed at this court is that you don’t have to be dressed up you can show up like you just rolled out of bed.

On July 6, 2016, I was in department five for the court observation. Between 8:30 until around 11:30, there was not much happening within the department. Since the Judge had to be in three different courtrooms during the morning, department five was just waiting for the judge to come in. The people in the courtroom were the people who were waiting for their arraignment hearing in front of Judge Lord. There were three different defense lawyers who were representing differently clients who were waiting for their arraignment hearing. Nadim, I hope I am spelling her name right, was the lawyer from the office. She was very helpful on explaining what was going on and the different cases she had on her desk. When Judge lord was finished in the other departments, the cases on the docket went by quickly. In a short amount of time the courtroom was empty and we left to go to lunch.

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To