court observation

This phase is when the defendant appears before a magistrate judge and is informed of the charges against them and the constitutional rights they are afforded. Furthermore, after hearing about the grand jury the movie progresses directly to the trial. This is not an accurate portrayal because it entirely skips the arraignment phase. Arraignment is a very important step in the criminal justice process because it is at this point that the accused will enter a plea. The audience never saw this phase; therefore, we have no idea if Tom formally plead guilty or not guilty to the charge of rape. However, it can be assumed Tom’s plea would’ve been not guilty as he denies the charges during the actual trial.

During this documentary, the viewers get an inside look at how criminal proceedings work. In the courtroom, the most important players are the prosecution, defense, and judge. The judge is in the room to make sure the proceeding runs smoothly and to settle any arguments that arise. The prosecution is there to accuse the defendant for whatever crime he or she has been convicted of. The defense is there to defend the person being convicted of the crime. There is also a bailiff who is there to oversee the court and make sure everyone there is safe. The bailiff will bring evidence form the defense or prosecution to the judge, as nobody is to approach the bench without the judge calling attorneys to the

I was still filled with anticipation and was quite surprised at the differences between my first and second experience. I was formally dressed and did not really blend in with anyone else sitting in the courtroom. The attorneys seemed to come and go as they pleased, with no deference or respect for the proceedings in session.

The judge, in the movie, actually listened to the prosecutor’s witnesses and decided there was enough probable cause to move forward to a trial. Many judges are often too busy to examine the facts of the case before making a probable cause determination as stated in our text.

Professor Chapleau CJS 7 April 2013 Courtroom 203 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.

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

Courts handle some pretty complex cases on a daily basis and rely on their previous knowledge of cases and on previous cases themselves to help them decide cases. This is a practice that goes on across the land. Issues such as hearsay, best evidence, mental capacity, and many others come

Issue The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

The prosecutor for the Trayvon martin case use emotion and drama to get the jury on his side in order to win the case. This seemed like the base of the prosecution, the main strength. The prosecutor didn’t seem to have any noticeable weakness at first but after multiple views the one thing that is weak about the opening statement was that he didn’t involve the family enough to invoke the max sympathy from the jury and the judge, had he done this the pitiful testimony from Rachel Jeantel might have not swayed the case as much as it did. The greatest strength of the opening statement of the prosecution was the repeating of George Zimmerman’s words “Fucking punks they always get away” or something to that nature. This tactic will show the judge

The prosecution wanted to disclose the information about the informant because it was not needed in the preliminary hearing.The Gale Encyclopedia said that “The hearing is conducted to determine whether there is sufficient

Sitting in on a trial, truly opened my eyes to the reality of the world we live in. In other words, crime happens everyday, all around us. Truthfully, I felt bad for the defendant, for he was not expecting 35 college students to sit on his trial, though it is open to the public. After reading Crook County, I found multiple similarities and differences between the book and the trial I went to. For example, Crook County, states the division between the minority and white individuals. There is glass dividing them, which creates the race division. However, in Williamsport, there is no distinct division of race, for the trial was open to the public and there is no assigned seating.

The most important thing that happened to me this reporting period is that I was able to witness the plea bargaining process and hearing. This was the first time I was in the courtroom. I think it is very interesting how the process takes places. I did not necessary understand the language used in the hearing as it was a property case about the purchase of a radio station. However, it was still interesting to view how the defense attorney and the prosecutors interacted. In this case, I think the prosecutor did an excellent job of cross examining the witness. As we with the plea bargaining, the process was pretty much the same from case to case. It took approximately 15 to 20 mins per case. The defendant verified his identity, the prosecutor

As I sat in the courtroom observing these trials take place it was nothing really breathtaking or exciting. One of the cases I witnessed was a divorce proceeding that involved a father reportedly cheating on his wife and the mother desired full custody of her child. At a moment there was very abusive and the mother desired to full custody of her child. For myslef it tough to bare and watch this case because I felt sad for the child It was tough for myself to watch this case proceeding becasuse As recess approached I was about to leave but I asked the blaliff if there

For Michael, the experience will be surreal. He will essentially be watching his original trial replayed, featuring evidence that his jury never heard, with another man sitting behind the defense table. In recent court appearances, Norwood has appeared unkempt, his dark, greasy hair pulled back into a ponytail, his expression blasé as he surveys the bank of TV cameras in the courtroom. (Because of publicity surrounding the case, the trial has been moved to San Angelo on a change of venue.) “I won’t do anything to jeopardize the trial, of course,” Michael told me, “but I’ve wondered if I will be able to control myself when I see him face-to-face.” Yet Michael has already shown Norwood mercy. At his request, as well as that of the entire Kirkpatrick family, Tanner will not seek a death sentence.

iii. Testimony of Officers Smith and Jones is Admissible Evidence Because the defendants were allowed to be there under hot pursuit, the testimony from them is admissible. They are trained professionals and it is expected of them to know the signs of