Court Proceeding Details - Essay Example

Analysis The court proceeding consisted of the prosecutor, the defendant, the jury and several members of the public who had come to witness the proceeding, the large proceeding attracted interests from several social coffers thereby heightening the proceedings. The proceeding followed the legal process with the prosecutor providing the defendant with a chance to respond to the accusations before he began defending himself. As part of the court proceeding, the defendant had an attorney who represented him in the case. The cross-examination process was as hectic as anticipated in such processes. The prosecutor analyzed the defendant’s explanation of the occurrence with the view of establishing inconsistencies that would help either incriminate the defendant or discover a potential evidence with which to determine guilt. The cross-examination process followed the defendant’s account of the occurrence. The defendant has defiant time to recount the events as he remembers them and as expected, the defendant took the opportunity to acquit himself of any claim thereby denying any connections with the crime. The vehement account from the occurrence portrayed the defendant favorably as he explained everything, as he believed they occurred. However, the prosecutor could not fail to observe several features of the account since he deliberately omitted issues that would readily incriminate him. The prosecutor therefore asked systematic questions allowing him time to respond appropriately. During the cross examination, the prosecutor sought to establish features of the defendant’s account that would help prove his theory about the crime. The prosecutor therefore asked systematic questions often developing effective follow up questions that would help him achieve his objectives. The defendant’s attorney often rose to either object to some of the questions that he believed would incriminate or frustrate his client. The judge often either granted or denied the two factions chances as he deemed fit. The judge analyzed the accounts and the issues presented by the parties thereby determining the consistencies presented by each party. The final argument was the judge’s justification of his punishment. He claimed that the punishment would help reform the individual while the man would serve as an example for other people in the society who would act similarly in the future. This implied that the court cases have myriad functions a feature that consequently influences the precedents that judges make and use when making their rulings. The court proceeding was a systematic system that upheld the values of equality and fairness. At the end, the judge made his judgment making stern warnings to the defendant who had committed a crime against the public. As he stamped his hammer, the judge observed that the punishments would not only help reform the individual but also serve as a warning. This implied that the punishment was adequate to serve the two functions. The fact that the punishment would serve as a warning to those who would commit similar crimes implied that similar offenders would face the same punishments. Judges consider every feature of their cases thereby comparing such to past judgments in order to determine consistencies. The judge therefore made the comment with the view of acknowledging the relevance of precedence that courts sets for future judgments. Among the fundamental features, a legal proceeding is often the plaintiff. The case alongside on the other hand was unique owing to the absence of a plaintiff since the defendant committed the crime against the public. This presented a challenge in the determination of the injury the defendant caused to the public. However, the prosecutor presented all the facts thereby providing the jury with a hypothetical view of the crime. Additionally, the presence of the two counsels one representing the defendant while the other representing the public helped eliminate any inconsistencies since they both provided ways in which the crime affected the public thereby validating the crime (Bogen, 2003). The hypothetical view to the problem helped portray the injuries the defendant had caused thereby informing the type of punishment that the jury recommended for the defendant. The case was a criminal prosecution with the prosecutor striving to prove the injury the defendant caused to the public. A criminal prosecution is one in which the prosecutor seeks to prove a wring doing often known as the injury caused to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is conspicuously missing a feature that proves that the defendant did not commit the crime against any specified individual. This requires the prosecutor to prove the injury that the defendant caused to the public a future that validates the hypothetical view the prosecutor adopts in the case thereby succeeding in proving that the defendant had committed a crime possibly causing harm to the public. He provided both evidence and witnesses who helped corroborate his claims proving that the defendant in deed committed the crime thereby causing injury to the public. The case espoused myriad laws and statues that both the judge and the prosecutor sought to uphold in their official duties, among such laws was the law guarantying the freedoms of the public. The citizenry have myriad freedoms in the country; however, alongside the freedoms are responsibilities and boundaries. An individual’s freedom for example should not cause injury to another person. The prosecutor therefore strives to prove that while expressing his myriad freedoms, the defendant caused injury to the public. After providing the injury, he cased to the public, the judge thus devices an effective punishment that will ensure that he appreciates such laws and uphold the need for peaceful coexistence in the society. The judge thus outlines adequate punitive measures that will ensures that he changes his behavior and appreciates the crime he committed. Additionally, the punishment serves as a warning to the public thereby curbing the occurrence of similar crimes in the future. The judge asked several questions to both the prosecutor and the attorneys present in the case. All the judge’s questions sought to clarify the issues in the case and the facts that the different parties present before him. He often compelled the two parties to clarify and make their questions clearer in order for either the party or the bench to understand easily. In most cases, the prosecutor would ask questions that confused the defendant. The judge therefore would interject such sessions and force the parties to clarify their questions in order to simplify them in order to improve the understanding of the intended parties, a strategic feature of the proceeding that ensured that the court upheld justice by making every party understand the proceeding. This equally vital feature contributes to the lawlessness, justice and fairness of the legal process. The parties in the case strived to uphold the ethical and codes of conduct as postulated by the institutions. Additionally, they succeeded in securing the society by proving the guilt in a criminal. The judge strived to uphold justice and fairness in the case by providing each party with adequate time to present their views before the court. However, as a lawyer in the court, I would heighten the assessments and cross examination of the witnesses the prosecutor provided. Speculation is an acceptable feature in courts and courts world over use such in providing a hypothetical view of reality. In this case, the prosecutor relied extensively on speculation a feature the denied him objectivity. While he succeeded in proving the defendant’s guilt, it became clear that the defendant’s lawyer was not effective and did not exhaust all the possible techniques I defending his client. Most of the witnesses provided inconsistent accounts of the occurrence with the prosecutor concentrating only on the few consistent features. As a lawyer, I would ask varied questions to the witnesses thereby roving any element of speculation in the case. Among the new features I learnt at the court included the role of a judgment. A judgment just as the judge in the case explained did not only serve to provide justice to the aggrieved parties but also sought to reform the culprit while serving as warnings to other members of the public. The judges thus consider vital features of their punishments in order to determine an appropriateness. In so doing some of the judges develop precedents for subsequent similar cases. Judges must consider past judgments before passing judgments in order to comply with existing precedents made by other judges in the past on similar cases. Reference Bogen, D. S. (2003). Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Read More