The Court Hearing At The Sonoma County Superior Court

When reading on the newspaper about what has been going on around and in the city, there maybe a time that someone will be finding that people are going to a courthouse for the crime they have committed. However not everyone that goes to a courthouse commits a crime and there are some people that are taken away to jail or in prison are guilty for that crime that they committed.

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

I am the Assistant Deputy In Charge of the high threat capital murder case of U.S. vs. Ricky Fackrell and Christopher Cramer currently underway in Beaumont, TX. Both defendants are federal inmates and members of the violent prison gang Soldiers of Aryan Culture. These defendants are accused of stabbing another inmate at least 68 times, inflicting mortal wounds to the victim. During the course of this trial, both inmates have made spontaneous outbursts during the trial and veiled threats towards prosecutors and prosecution witnesses. These defendants are considered extremely violent, as defendant Fackrell has an additional murder charge pending, where he is accused of stomping the head of another inmate, causing that inmate to enter a vegetative

On October 7th I was present at the courthouse from 8: 45 am-10: 45 am. During that initial visit, I was very nervous; since it is a small courthouse I stood out like a sore thumb. I was “over dressed” in comparison to the other actors that were present, even though I was wearing slacks, an FIU Honor’s Polo, and flats. The Assistant State Attorney was Demetrios Efstratiou who was at least professionally dressed. There was Public Defenders present, but I did not catch their names, nor could I locate them on the Internet. Both gentlemen were dressed professionally as well. The only actor during this visit that was dressed unprofessionally was a private defense attorney Jessica Reilly, who is a partner at one of the bigger firms in Key

My understanding of the court system has changed almost weekly from the beginning of my semester. I do understand things that I never thought I would’ve have known or even cared about in the least. The book Courtroom 302 has brought an even different side of thinking into this. The book goes into detail about the criminal court in Chicago. He watches all of the actions and different trials that come and go in the courtroom 302. He presents many different cases throughout the book which gives more insight then just a single case.

The prosecution works to get their guilty verdict while the defense tries to help their clients with their verdicts. In court I listen to both sides argue the Innocence/Guilt of the young woman in question wanted on DWI charges. The honorable judge Pauline Hankins presides over the court and waits patiently for all the evidence to be presented. The prosecution and the defense are set on opposite sides of the courtroom while the jury box and the belief are set next to the judge. Judge Pauline Hankins is in the middle of the courtroom in front of the North Carolina State seal with an office on the right next to the witness stand. Everything that has been said in the court is added to the court record. The court record is a detailed document

As I entered the court, the trial has already commenced so I did not really know how a real trial started. I sat in the back where the public sits, facing the judge bench. The courtroom was cold and quiet. Especially it was very small, much smaller and less impressive than I expected.. Everyone was in formal dressing code. There were just a few number of spectators and family members in the court room. There was a clerk who was typing everything what was happening during the court time. Judge Krocker appeared to have things under control and had the proceedings moving forward smoothly. She was a very friendly lady with short blonde hair. She was listening attentively. She spoke clearly and distinctly so that everyone in the courtroom could hear. Samuel Gallegos is a white man about 5 '8 tall. He looked quite nervous while some police officers were standing behind him. From what I understood, this case was really happening back in 2014 and the suspect has criminal history relating to assault of child and another related case to this case. On my left hand side were the bailiffs while some others stood observed

In this brief, I am going to prove to you, the judges and the court, that Officer Raymond’s initial stop is objectively justified under the Fourth Amendment and the New Setonia Statute. Because the truck was old, Officer Raymond’s experience being a police officer, and Mr. Jackson’s making movements towards the glovebox while Officer Billy was approaching the car, this proved there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car. Additionally, even if Mr. Jackson’s car was not a commercial vehicle, there were enough other factors pertaining to search of the truck that made the mistake of law objectively reasonable. Based on all of the facts and the evidence listed in the case, the state of New Setonia is going to win.

California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute (codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) protects the Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and right of petition by subjecting any cause of action that chills these rights to be subject to a special motion to strike. In the context of a complaint against an attorney for malpractice, the California Court of Appeal recently clarified its application under existing precedent and held the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply to claims against attorneys by former clients.

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

The book Courtroom 302 by Steve Bogira is about one year in one courtroom in Chicago’s Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The Cook County Courthouse is the busiest felony courthouse in the country. In the book, we are given a behind-the-scenes look into the daily cases that are dealt with every day and into the highest profile case of the year. Bogira gives great insight into how the ethics of the criminal justice system are compromised and often ignored as justice is handed out swiftly and mindlessly.

It has been reported that millions of crimes is committed in the United States of America which violates and harms the individual rights, properties, and freedoms that are not only guaranteed to American citizens of this country. It has been highlighted that justice is dealt with according to the crimes committed based on the findings and principles of our country, which derived from the Constitution of the United States. While it has been argued justice may not always be fair due to certain rights given to those who may be charged with crime sometimes an error is made. A simple mistake, a missing or broken link in the chain that represents the investigation and trial processes causes an innocent bystander to become caught up in an investigation. More importantly, in many cases can result in a wrongful conviction. This error can rise from many forms like a mistaken eyewitness identification, a false confession, misconduct of the governing authorities, improper forensic investigation, or including staff that neglect to make efforts or unskilled litigation by the defense attorneys. Those whom are affected endure years in prison, deal with lost wages, isolation from friends and family, scrutiny from potential employers, and isolation from their community.

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

In the electronic world that we live in, every aspect of life can be broadcast across the country in seconds. This aspect is even more realistic when cameras are front and center in American courtrooms. Each morning and afternoon we turn on the television, reality television takes over and civil lawsuits or divorces are being broadcast on shows such as the Judge Judy Show, Judge Brown Show, Judge Greg Mathis Show or Divorce Court. Many people, young and old, are exposed to these reality shows believing what they see is the “real” criminal justice system at

I went to the court on October 13, around 10:30. When I first walked in there were a lot of people there I wasn’t expecting that at all. Security was higher than at the magistrate court. There were attorneys there but they stand next to there defendants at all times since it was still assembly justice so the trials didn’t go on for days if the most for about 30 minutes. The first case I had a chance was already on its way so I don’t know how long it had been going on for. The defendant was wearing a dark blue jump suit. As well as he had some chains aournd his waist