The Trial And The Murder Trial

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.

On August 12, 2010, Officers Saheed Baksh and Jeffrey Roberts were the first to respond to Bogota after a high-speed chase that started when two suspects fled the scene of a home that they attempted to burglarize. When apprehending the suspects, one of them reached for what Baksh suspected was a gun and the officer fired two rounds, both of which missed the driver. It was believed that both officers failed to immediately report the shooting and that officer Baksh removed the shell casing from the crime scene and at first had denied that he had even discharged his weapon.

Whether Mr. Jack Hernandez’s statements made during the interrogation can be used against him in the new murder trial. Hernandez was initially wanted for questioning in the murder of his former roommate in Texas and after being sentenced for a separate crime in Missouri, he was improperly questioned, Mirandized and detained as a result of his excited utterance due to a language barrier. The question is whether the statements taken by Missouri officials and Canadian authorities will be allowed to be used in Hernandez’ Texas trial.

The defendant plead guilty to all of his charges. To begin the judge gave the defendant more time to pay his fine. Then the prosecutor began by saying that the defendant was non-compliant, had consistently sabotaged the people around him, and that his mother had called him a selfish individual. Since the defendant had been on probation he had constantly committed new offences. At one point, he had been living in a group home and six days after sentencing he had committed new offences. The crown requested that he should be sentenced 6 months deferred custody.

Orenthal James “O.J” Simpson was an African-American male suspect in the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. They were both found stabbed to death outside Nicole’s condominium in the Brentwood area in Los Angeles. After failing to turn himself in on June 17, he became a victim of a low-speed pursuit in a white Ford Bronco SUV. He was then arrested and sent to trial on October 3, 1995, were the jury’s verdict was “not guilty” for the two murders.

Every generation has felt, at one point or another, uneasy about the efficacy of their justice system. One need not look further than a few months ago with the controversial murder trial of Casey Anthony. People were enraged by the jury’s decision to let her go. Up until today, many people are convinced that there existed enough evidence for convicting her of first-degree murder of her daughter. Can we say that today’s justice system is ineffective in administering punishment? Should people take matters in their own hands if they do not agree on the court’s decision? Well, two thousand years ago, things were different. People took matters in their own hands. There was no judge, jury, prosecutor or defendant in Ancient Greece. Individuals acted as executioners based on their own predilections on how justice should be administrated and on whom. In the Oresteia, Aeschylus praises the substitution of such blood vengeance system with trial by jury, which according to him was a more civilized and equitable system. In that matter, I must agree with Aeschylus and argue that jury by trial is a far more civilized and equitable system than the old blood vengeance system.

I thought it was very obscure that you would have the criminals accomplice and own cousin as a witness for the trial. I find this weird because both of these men are criminals due to their criminal history and prior convictions. I thought it was extremely dragged out in the way that the prosecutor asked the simplest and littlest questions to Fate in order to generate the responses she wanted to hear. It seemed that every time she did not receive an answer that she agreed with or liked 100 percent she would pause for 15 seconds and then send out another question that would regenerate an answer that she wanted to hear. As this process proceeded the only thing the defendants attorney did was back his client up and made sure that none of the questions or responses were misleading. The judge seemed to be silent and just rolling his eyes throughout the whole questioning process, while he acted just as a mediator and listened to everyone talk without any input at all. I was not able to see anymore of this case so I do not not what the final decision will end up being. My guess would be that Mr. Perry gets a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 28 years in prison or life. HIs cousin, the accomplice, should also see just as much time for being involved but I do not see him serving more than is cousin but possibly just as much. This case has dragged out for sometime now an it is due to Fate being accused of

The defendant’s attorney spoke first, and argued on how the defendant has change since the last six months he has been held in custody. She pointed out he has been clean and going to treatment, how his child’s mother has passed away and how he wanted to take care of him, and how he is planning to be good to society by restarting his late brother’s business in construction. I find this very interesting that she would say this, because this type of information would come

I went to go check in the juror assembly room to check for trials, they only knew of one later on in the criminal court. I went to Judge Samuels courtroom because that is where the trial was going to occur later in the day. When I arrived Judge Samuels was doing arraignments which, I found out were very common in the criminal courts. She would give the defendants who had DUI’s options between time in county jail or community service. One of the cases that stood out was a defendant who needed psych sessions. The defendant had just been given a trial and was found guilty so, they had to sentence her. The defendant was convicted of three counts one of them being assault with a deadly weapon, which happened to be a car.

With such short notice there was something that was vital to him “winning” this hearing, it was the criminal paralegal a couple of offices over. If it were not for her meticulousness then the hearing would have been a disaster. I interviewed a couple of the paralegals at the Summit Law Firm and one of them was Ana Lopez, the Criminal Case Manager, during the interview she emphasized the attention to detail that is needed to be a great paralegal. Depending on where and in what field of the law one works in the number of cases that one handles can vary drastically. At the Summit Law Firm the number of caseload is growing and with that comes the chance that something falls in between the cracks.

A. Hook (Johnny Cochrane stated in court “if the glove does not fit, then you must acquit”) Consider this for instance; I find it peculiar that years later Chris Darden had the audacity to state publicly that Johnny Cochrane ripped the lining in the infamous gloves, That were wore the day of heinous murders. Even today our society is left with the indelible question; what really happened, and will we ever really know? There is plenty of speculation, and circumstantial evidence. There is one undeniable fact, and that is the two victims will remain forever silent, and the one person who can reveal the terrible tragedy will die with the sinful secret.

Manual was very calm and comfortable in the courthouse. Almost as if he was a veteran, and seeing how he is the Deputy District Attorney of Weld county I’m sure he has some experience under his belt. Within the first five minutes after the judge entered the room he got straight down to business. Asking for a proposed instruction for evidence being presented the jury be reworded and completely restructured. It was a very meticulous process that the court spent well over five minutes combing over while we waited on the jury. Throughout the day Mr.Pellicer was very blunt and confident, almost to a fault. Any objections or suggestions Mr.Pellicer made in court, Ms.Pearlman (the defending attorney) seemed to say "me too" after. It seemed almost as if she was playing catch up in with the prosecutor. In hindsight, the first five minutes of the case were a great foreshadowing for the events to come. He seemed very passionate about the case and condemning Mr.Olmeda. During direct examination Mr.Pellicer was very concise and direct with his questions, building a great base for his argument. The dichotomous questioning allowed for a great establishment of time, facts, opinions, and evidence. There were rarely any awkward pauses, or moments of shuffling through paperwork during questioning. In fact, Mr.Pellicer made a great use of the pauses during his questioning

When I walked in, the defendant was seated on the stand, and he was telling the judge that he had filed for custody of his four children. As he was explaining why, Brad Macdonald, the ex-wife’s lawyer, objected. His reason for objecting was that the basis for filing was not relevant. I didn’t know that lawyers were free to interrupt people on the bench while they were presenting their case. The judge sustained the objection, and the defendant continued to plead his case.

Due to the late arrival of the defendant, the defense barrister had to apologies on his behalf, resulting in the judge sanctioning him custody during lunchtime. I was surprise that see that judge did not say anything more, I am use to judges in America to be very cross with any party that arrived to the trail late. I had once witness seen a judge delayed the trail to another day for the lateness of the defense. But the judge only sanction him so I figure that this may happen more than once.

“Awe, the jury should be coming back in a minute or two, pretty cut and dry case. Besides, I don 't like sticking around to see myself lose a case. It makes me feel like an imbecile.”