Promote Trust Essay

On October 21, 2014 I went to a court to listen in on some proceedings. It was pretty difficult to find one that was open to the public in this court. Many courtrooms were private or some hearings were irrelevant with what I was looking for. The bailiffs were really nice they helped guide us to the big courtroom that allowed proceedings to be heard by the public. There were some trials that we couldn’t attend because it was a more serious crime or there were juveniles involved and since they are under age we couldn’t be there for it. The courtroom I was in had a professional atmosphere to it but kind of unorganized because there were a bunch of papers all over the place and some of the inmates didn’t show up so the judge would put them to the side. Majority of the inmates being held for drugs, driving under the influence, or physical violence.

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

It has also been suggested that judges could use video conferencing facilities from a different location in order to deal with a civil dispute rather than be physically present. This is not without its’ own set of challenges . It is implied that a party in a trial has the right to see a judge “struggling conscientiously with the detail of a case ” which is a “feature of the court system that cannot be discarded ”. In trying to minimise the physical aspect of the judge’s role in court seems to undermine the basic fundamental human rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that parties in a trial are entitled to a “fair and public hearing...” . This is because it seeks to reinforce the aspect of the courts moving towards a more ‘impersonal ’ and ‘nonhuman ’ approach to dealing with civil disputes.

Australian courtrooms are highly ritualised spaces where various long serving customs and traditions are strictly followed in order to constitute events of power, and also featured in the relative power relations. As was evident by the local courtrooms visited within The Downing Centre, the architecture, language, courtroom actors and spatial organisation demonstrate the numerous levels of power, of which are present. This usage of power is evident as visible through the relationships between the courtroom actors, particularly those between the judge or magistrate, the witnesses and lastly, the lawyers. These relations significantly highlight the disparity of power between these individuals. Simultaneously, the courtroom architecture of which is present also signals and represents the different levels of power during court proceedings. In addition, the use of legal jargon in one’s favour is also a worthy indicator of attaining this much sought after power aforementioned.

So when I first got there I had the idea that it was a mock trial. It was not until we start and they started going over the history of the Texas Supreme Court and how they are able to travel thought the state did I realize that the court cases were real. Which, I am glad that they were real cases because that would have been boring if they were mock. So once I got that all right in my head I started to focus on the cases the first one was at some point difficult to follow to quote my friend who’s in high school “I don’t get why everybody is so mad about so ranch there is plenty of it at Walmart at leas that’s what that one dude said”. Now, my friends, he is the class clown, so I knew it was a joke but he did ask me “for real why did he keep

Walking into a court and actually seeing a case up close in personal instead of watching it through a TV screen is something that is very interesting. You get to see the raw emotion of everyone in real life, you get to sense the feelings that everyone is having in the room, and you actually get to see whether the offender feels guilty for what he or she did by watching the way they act in the courtroom. Sitting on a bench and actually observing what the emotions of every person in the room, not just the offender and the victim, but also the people sitting on the benches that are just there to observe. It’s hard not to get caught up with what his happening in the case and

“The accused needs to stand.” The tribunal judge’s voice echoed throughout the cavernous courtroom. Although he sat high upon his chair behind his raised bench, the lighting around him was dim, providing a sense of anonymity. To his right, a collection of citizens, too, sat shrouded in anonymity.

trappings of the courtroom are out of place in such hearings. The judge on a bench,

I was the sole public member here at this specific court, which made it seem a bit more daunting than usual. This court was probably where I had an awe moment for myself. The room was filled with marble and gold trimming everywhere. The official courtroom was carpeted with wood everywhere. The judge on duty, Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein had not yet arrived when I was there. Outside the courtroom, counsels and attorneys are discussing and/or gossiping at the moment before the case starts. The atmosphere of this courtroom is exactly what I expected a courtroom to be like. This feeling was not met in the NY criminal and civil courts. One thing that was noticed was that there were zero court officers in the courtroom so far which seemed very odd, given the daunting nature of the whole room. The transcriber, more commonly known as the court reporter, arrived. The lack of my phone gives me no sense of time. It felt like I was there for about 5 minutes but it was more like ten to fifteen minutes had passed. There was an abnormal lack of modern feel, but certainly no lack of modern devices. The courtroom that I was in had several computers, which were equipped with some of the latest software made for them.

In Norman Spaulding’s article The Enclosure of Justice: Courthouse Architecture, Due Process, and the Dead Metaphor of Trial, the focus is on the adversarial space, that is, the courthouse in which justice is administered. There is very little said about this space and his article searches for deeper, unexplored connections between justice and the space in which it operates. Using a historical overview, Spaulding shows how courtrooms have become increasingly enclosed; signifying the liberation of law from all political, commercial and social space. Actual courtroom trials are becoming a ‘dead metaphor’ as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers better alternatives for mass processing and swift justice in private and enclosed settings. Spaulding concludes, there is a movement towards complete enclosure and further partitioning of the traditional courtroom trial, because it limits interruption, enabling dispassionate, rational, and effective decision making.

The doors to the courtroom

It was my very first time ever attending a criminal court or a court in general for that matter. I have seen many television shows where I have seen many criminal trials and I was always very interested in watch them. I finally had the chance to observe an actual criminal court trial and it was far too different from what I expected. The courthouse itself was very busy and crowded downstairs in the main entrance, but as soon as I went up in the different floors each floor was very quiet I only saw very few people walk by or walk inside the court rooms. I had to go to six different floors of the building just to find a trail that was already in progress.

I was highly comfortable in the courtroom that I chose to walk into. I walked into the courtroom after the hearing had started, and the judge was very welcoming. I did not feel as if I was interrupting at all. The judge was exceptionally kind. He even stopped the hearing to welcome me. He questioned why I was there and I told him I had a school project that I needed to sit through a court hearing. He welcomed me, yet again, and continued the hearing. Other than the initial introduction, I was not active in the session. I sat quietly in the middle of the courtroom behind the plaintiff, taking notes on the

Since judges and solicitors don' t need to wear wigs at employment tribunals, cases needn't to be open to public under some circumstances and employment tribunals meant to be cheap, speedy and informal, but they are not informal, actually, they are becoming increasingly legalistic. As the complexity and magnitude of employment law keeps increasing, the workload of employment tribunals increases, lawyers are now needed, thus the employment tribunals are no longer as cheap and informal as before. "As to informality, anyone going to an employment tribunal expecting a cosy chat can think again, despite the injunction in the regulation that tribunals should seek to avoid

The principle of open justice is an essential part for creating public confidence in the judicial administration process in the UK and has been for over a century. Thus, in Scott v Scott Lord Atkinson provides that a public trial is the best security for the pure, impartial and efficient administration of justice…and the best means for winning public confidence and respect . However, open justice is not an absolute right, and there are circumstances where open court proceedings would defeat the object of the case. Consequently, the family justice system has a range of court reporting restrictions which have in effect restricted the open rule principle, but have prevented` people, in particular children, from being exploited by the media in administrating justice in the family court.