Real Courts vs Fictional Courts

Criticisms of lawyers are the topic in Richard A. Wasserstrom's article "Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues." Wasserstrom broke this topic into two main areas of discussion. The first suggests that lawyers operate with essentially no regard for any negative impact of their efforts on the world at large. Analysis of the relationship that exists between the lawyer and their client was the second topic of discussion. "Here the charge is that it is the lawyer-client relationship which is morally objectionable because it is a relationship which the lawyer dominates and in which the lawyer typically, and perhaps inevitably, treats the client in both an

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.

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

I observed court operations at the Plantation Key Government Center in Tavernier, Florida twice: on October 7th and November 4th. I observed Chief Circuit Judge Carlos Garcia in courtroom A. The courthouse is located in the 16th Judicial Circuit of Florida and it’s a state trial court with general jurisdiction. The first visit was cut short, in part because it was a lighter criminal day than planned, but also I was flabbergasted by the lack of professionalism that was present in this courtroom. I’m not sure if it’s a “court in Paradise” problem, or something that is observed at other courtrooms, however, I’m disappointed in what I saw. Lack of professionalism was evident during both visits from the actors and their actions in the courtroom.

Everyone was subjected to security including the lawyers and employees of the court house. Everyone was either in some type of uniform or dressed extremely formal, even if they were just spectators. Few people were in the court room, but not many. The judge, lawyers and people that were being represented had not still entered the building. Moments later the plaintiff, Dawn-Evans Donahue, and the defendant Joseph Donahue with their lawyers Michael Morris and John M. Makowski, entered the court room. They had taken their place on each of the court room to make their cases in front of the judge. The bailiff then told us to all rise for their entrance of Judge Polansky. We all rose and took our seats. The court had now been set in motion for deliberation. The judge was wearing the standard gown that is portrayed in films and in real life, there was no jury because this was not a trial court, this was a family matters case.

About the only trial participants whose roles are properly portrayed by television court shows are those of court reporters, bailiffs and court clerks. Court reporters are traditionally almost never seen or heard from in movies or on television shows, even though their roles are extremely important to the legal process because they create the legal record of proceedings. Court clerks, who normally operate and run much of the court procedures and behind the scenes work, are also not usually seen or heard from in the courtroom, in television shows or real life. Only bailiffs, due to their ability to carry a gun in the court room, are

Walking into a silent courtroom, it is quiet. All you can hear is the footsteps you are making as you approach the jury to do an opening statement. You feel anxious and excited all at the same time, because at the beginning of your career, you were the jury. This is what Kellie Howell experiences everyday as she walks into a courtroom. Kellie Howell started this profession with intentions of helping people when nobody else will. Although there are many moments of excitement, there are also difficulties. This is what makes Kellie continue to push forward in this field. Kellie Howell, a defense attorney of Del City, Oklahoma, was motivated to pursue this career because she felt it was necessary to represent others in their darkest hour.

The book Courtroom 302, written by Steve Bogira in 2005, is about the criminal courts in Chicago, IL. Steve Bogira graduated from Northwestern University, and is an excellent reporter for the Chicago Review. Courtroom 302 is story told mainly from through Steve Bogira’s observations. Bogira observes a courtroom (Courtroom 302), and basically the entire justice system process from beginning to end. The courtroom that Bogira observes is in the control of Judge Daniel Locallo. Judge Locallo helps give Bogira an all access view, plus vital personal thoughts and feelings about issues and events that he has dealt with; and Bogira has observed. Judge Locallo is not the only person that expresses personal information. Many employees of the

| |There are two types of juries used in the United |The competence of a jury is very important to the outcome|

For instance, when Juror 4 said to everyone regarding about a baffling conflict, “I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." (16) This shows how Juror 4 is confident and determined to resolve the case and not play around. He tries very hard to calm many jurors down instead of letting it go and think of other things, this shows that he cares about the case. Moreover, Juror 8 also shows us that he cares about the case because he thinks and tries very hard to back up his claim so that is seems believable. To illustrate, when Juror 8 tries to retort back to a claim he thinks is false, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it." (18) This quote reveals how he is confident with his knowledge and tries very hard to think of a rebuttal against Juror 2 argument. He thinks that a rebuttal against a false statement is very important, because he doesn’t want Juror 2 to convince other people with his statement. In another example, Juror 8 exhibits how he takes the trial seriously by investigating the case in his own time, “I’m just saying it’s possible ... I got it last night in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's house. It cost two dollars." (24). In his own time, Juror 8 tries to find a similar knife that has been used in the murder, and successful bought one. This shows how he is willing to sacrifice his own time to find evidence for the case, it shows that he cares about the case and take the trial seriously. By taking the trial seriously, it reveals how both of the jurors is a fair person and wanted to give a fair trial and justice to the

In Virginia State, Jay Lentz was convicted by a jury in July 2003 for the kidnapping and murder of his wife. The jury recommended that Mr. Lentz spend life in prison; however, the United

During my two days attending youth court I was in two separate courtrooms. The lay out of these courtrooms was fairly simple. There was a sitting area in the courtroom where individuals could be seated. The individuals seated in this area consisted of the accused parties in cases, witnesses, family of the victims and offenders and general members from the public. There was two stands, one for the defense counsel and one for the crown attorneys. Each side also had a stand for

In the american court room there are several people involved. Some of the most important and lawful figures include: the judge, who is the main authority and the one responsible for justice. The prosecuting attorney, responsible for presenting the case against the defendant. The defense counsel, who is in

During a trial, there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct that must be observed. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecution. According to one author, “Police, prosecutors, and criminal court Judges see too much crime, so they tend to see crime everywhere. We need rules to control their conduct, Judges to carefully apply those rules, and other Judges to review those decisions (law-article.net).” Courtroom procedures are important because, without them, defendants and prosecution alike could be treated unfairly. These procedures give a standard format for trials that must be followed to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness