On April 17, 2017, I Attended Public Hearings In The Virginia

At eight in the morning on March 18th, my classmate Hallie and I showed up at the Administration building to go see a criminal court proceeding. The trail didn’t start until 8:30 am but we both wanted to get their early to ensure that we got through security and

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)

I chose to do my open-court observation on criminal cases. Criminal cases usually involve attorneys that try to prove their argument to the judge. I felt as though this setting would be more interesting to sit and observe versus a civil case where you have two people trying to settle a dispute. Its interesting to see how actual attorneys and judges act in a courtroom instead of what is portrayed on TV. My local courthouse which is in a police station holds preliminary hearings. A preliminary hearing is where the judge decides if there is enough evidence that there was a crime committed and you committed a crime. If the prosecutor fails to do this, then some or all the charges filed against you can be dismissed. There was two different parts to this process that I saw during my observation. The first one is when the defendant waives their hearing. Then the second being where the defendant decides to go through with the hearing. During my observation there was about ten cases, and all but two of them followed through with the hearing. This was very surprising to me as I watched because I couldn’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to at least see if the prosecution had sufficient evidence against them. Also it doesn’t even give their lawyer a chance to argue on their behalf against the prosecution. The first formal person to walk into the courtroom was the public defender. I watched as he called out names, and spoke briefly to nearly every person in the room. My immediate

The case involved a suspect who was stopped by a police officer for allegedly violating the right away of another vehicle in the City of Colton. He was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). This would have been his 3rd offense for DUI within 10 years. In the state of California, if found guilty, he could face 120 days in jail and 2 years revocation of his driver’s license. The Defendant believed that the police officer was not in a position to observe what he said he saw. A Department of Motor Vehicles hearing was schedule. The Defense presented evidence to the DMV officer to show that the officer could have not possibly seen what he indicated in his police report.

Prosecutor Pat Sullivan was placed in a bad situation with a defendant during a pre-trial conference. Ms. Sides location was unknown. When I became aware of the situation, I took over the courtroom and apologized to Mrs. Sullivan. I still regret that the bailiff’s failed to protect her. I made Judge Thornhill aware of bailiff Sides constant lack of presence in the courtroom—nothing was done.

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

In total the offender had committed nine different counts of offenses. The judge looked over all the offenses and the sentencing guidelines and decided the offender’s sentence. The judge gave him 50 months for six of the counts and then 20 months for the other three. The judge decided that he would serve these sentences concurrently, and that a minimum of 50 months before he could be released. The offender’s attorney had plead the that offender needed to have part of his time spent in a drug rehab facility, but the judge ignored that and sentenced that the offender spend all of his time in a prison (Superior

P is pleasant and cooperative during the arrest and was taken into custody without incident. He was released the next day with a court date. He obtained legal defense and faced the judge with both fear that he would be incarcerated and confidence that he had a defensible case. Much to his surprise, the judge imposed a harsh sentence to 90 day substance use treatment at the corrections facility. However, Mr. P is defensive when confronted with his alcohol use and denies that his drinking and driving is harmful behavior. He denies that this behavior is harmful to his work environment, other than if he were to be incarcerated, which he would then lose his job. He denies the seriousness of the charges against him. He is shocked at the harsh sentence that the judge has leveled against

CASE PROBLEM: HAMILTON COUNTY JUDGES Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases per year. In an overwhelming majority of the cases disposed, the verdict stands as rendered. However, some cases are appealed, and of those appealed, some of the cases are reversed. Kristen DelGuzzi of the Cincinnati Enquirer conducted a study of cases handled by Hamilton County Judges over a three-year period ( Cincinnati Enquirer, January 11, 1998 ). Shown in Table 2.5 are the results for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 Judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic relations Court, and Municipal Court. Two of the judges (Dinkelacker and Hogan) did not serve in the same court for the entire three-year period. The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to

On October of 2007 Elizabeth Shelton, a 20-year old student, killed her boyfriend after leaving a party at a condominium drunk. The police made her take two BAC tests, her blood alcohol concentration was three times the legal limit. One test read .26 and the other .28 percent after the fatal wreck. At the scene, when the medics were trying to take her blood samples for alcohol levels, she yelled out, “my daddy is a judge” and made a gesture at the officer. She got sentenced to four months in county jail and eight years of probation. The chief prosecutor for the Vehicular Homicide Team said, “for a first offender with no prior criminal history and one person killed, juries typically give 10 years probation.” The defendant got special treatment because her father was a State District

On September 27th I went to Branch 6 to watch the criminal trial of the defendant Lord Wilson. It was making out to be a weeklong trial and I made it on the second to last day. All I knew was that it was a case involving drugs and had been in the making for a while. When I arrived at the public safety building to listen to the criminal trial taking place I learned firsthand that things never seem to stay on schedule. A recess was taking place when I walked in. While I was sitting there I overheard another person in the courthouse talking about how they heard testimonies from witnesses the day before. That’s what I was looking forward to and now I was worried that I wouldn’t get to observe anything

As an individual who has never visited any form of court, I was extremely excited to witness our justice system in action for the purpose of this paper. Through the first amendment of the Constitution, the public has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings; yet knowing this, I was immensely repentant that as a criminal justice student in hopes of attaining a career in law enforcement have never previously stepped foot in any courthouse. It is paramount that an individual learns how the justice system of the United States is conducted, whether you have committed a crime or not. Attending a courthouse to witness an arraignment, or a criminal trial provides an individual with great insight in to our justice system, and allows us to interact with different members of the court such as, the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, court officers, and other court personal to further educate one’s self of how the court system comes together.

On 19 April 2017, a visit was made to the Ipswich Magistrates Court to observe and report on a matter being tried. The subject matter that was observed was a property damage and drug related offence involving the accused, Mr T and the Queensland Police Service. Both parties appeared either personally or by their lawyers. Although the offences in this matter were indictable, the trial could be dealt with before a magistrate. The matter was heard before His Honour Magistrate Aaron Simpson. The attendees present included: Senior Constable M, the police prosecutor; Ms O, the defendant’s lawyer; and the accused Mr T. The matter firstly heard all material facts, followed by the defence and lastly Magistrate Simpson attended

The double murder trial was still taking place in Department N with Judge Robinson. The defense attorney wanted to call in Detective Shields to answer some clarifications regarding the news media release of the murder. There was confusion over when the news was published as for the dates did not match up when testimonies were given. The Judge gave the okay for the Defense Attorney to ask the Detective regarding the dates and time. The detective clarified how it happen but didn’t know why the dates did not match up. Her testimony was the last one and people rest their case. The judge began to explain to the jurors the charges the defendant was facing and informed them each of the charges need it to be decided separately. The defendant was looking at three counts; one was attempted murder, first degree, and second-degree murder.

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