Psychology of the Courtroom Essay

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

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

Jury selection Jurors are randomly chosen by the NSW sheriff from a list of people from the electoral role who appears to be eligible to take part in the service. If you have been

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

In the American Criminal Justice System, there are four key attributes in the role of the prosecutor. There are discretion, resource dependence, sequential tasks, and filtering. The prosecutors are lawyers that are accountable for presenting criminal cases in trial. The United States Attorneys are pointed by state or government, and represent the federal government in courts. They prosecute all adults who commit felonies and juveniles who commit delinquent crimes. Conjointly, the prosecutors have further responsibilities, such as legal adviser of the country commissioners, the Board of Elections, and written admonition of the prosecutors.

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)

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trail will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know.

A Florida woman by the name Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez was given to the authority’s that this woman had abducted her child, Which Casey was lying. Casey had ruined this women reputation by lying on her and a lawsuit would be filed. In December of 2008 a Utility worker found Skeletal remains in a wooded area near the Anthony home. The remains were announced public on every news channel and that the remains were Caylee Anthony. Prosecutors went to announce that they will seek the death penalty for Casey. Is there

Prosecuting those who commit crimes is very important to the overall wellbeing of society and the citizens within society. Prosecuting and convicting criminals not only prevents them from committing another crime, it also serves as a deterrent to others that may be considering breaking the law. Many courts make up the judicial branch and these courts are responsible for applying laws made by the government. The courts are made up of courtroom workgroups that are the basis of the courts proceedings.

Hello judges, jurors, and everyone else present in this court room today. My name is Dr. Alyssa Diaz and I am an expert witness. I was called here to testify on this court case. Also I am here to inform you how examining a piece of hair from a suspect from a crime can help to find out who actually did commit the crime. There are some basic things that people should know about hair.

The film Twelve Angry Men shows many social psychology theories. This film presents some jurors who must decide if an accused murderer is guilty or innocent. In the beginning, all but one juror voted for guilty. Eventually, however, they come to a non-guilty verdict. It shows how a various group of individuals react to a situation that no one wants to be involved in. Twelve Angry Men exhibits so many examples of the true power of informational social influence and normative social influence. According to informational social influence, individuals tend to comply with others because they believe that another individuals version of a situation is more valid than their own. Normative social influence is a type of social influence that leads to conformity. This theory seems to fit in along with this movie because of the way the juror’s decisional processes went. Informational social influence is aggravated by obscurity and doubt of situation, importance of being correct, time constriction, and presence of those recognized as professionals. Just within the first few minutes of the movie, social influence is shown. In the jury room, a heated debate is prevented by an initial vote. This vote, which was taken publicly, was vulnerable to normative social influence or conformity from the fear of seeming in submissive. An obvious feeling of doubt is presented as the jurors vote. This hesitance can be perceived as weak conviction swayed by the guilty majority’s influence. Time constraints intensify informational social influence and possibly helped play a role in causing some of the jurors to cast guilty, conformist votes. Majority influence and social impact theory generate conformity. These theories are relevant in the jury context and are relevant to an explanation of Twelve Angry Men. Social impact theory specifies the situational and personal factors that bring on conformity. Conformity is enhanced by the immediacy element of social impact theory which brings to belief that without anonymity conflict is increasingly difficult. Perception of norms is apparently a factor that also brings out conformity. Stereotyping and prejudice were rampant at the time Twelve Angry Men was filmed. The director and writers cleverly

The aforementioned lack of legal expertise was felt and cased in ‘The Magistrates Tale’ where T, Grove recounts from personal experience that even after 80 sittings he still felt like a novice. T Grove is an ardent cheerleader for the use of magistrates and his passages reflect that as a magistrate is drawn from the local community there is a sense that people are being judged by their peers. John Humphreys shares this opinion and has been cited as stating that ‘if the people sitting up the on the bench are people like us…..then we may be more likely to feel that we have been fairly judged’. Not all aspects of society share this opinion; anecdotal evidence shows that defendants show mistrust in the magistracy as when faced with the option to be tried by the magistrate or a jury a favour is shown toward the jury. This mistrust can be based on the impression of the magistrate by the common man. Even though it is desired that the magistrate represent a cross section of society the majority of magistrates are middle aged, middle class, white men. The mistrust however could also be down to a misplaced view that magistrates begin to become sceptical of lines of defence, that they start to recognises defendants traits and in turn show bias to similar defendants, they become ‘case hardened’. However this can be counteracted with the fact that a magistrate is

The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a

I’m double majoring in Criminal Justice and Psychology because further down the road in my life I would love to be a Criminal Psychologist. I choose these fields because I love being able to understand why people do what they do. I want to understand why people do things a certain way, just looking at it in a psychological kind of way. Especially with criminals, what led them to murder that guy or rape that girl? What pursued them and what part of them thought that it would be acceptable?

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