Trial Observation - Essay Example

Dylan J. Kizy Sugameli MGT- 350 August 4, Trial Observation On July 28, defendant Dwayne Bailey Lewis was convicted of drugs possession with intent to deliver. I witnessed this occurrence. On my arrival at the Oakland County circuit court, I headed straight to the Jury Room hoping to find a continuing trial after trying in vain two days earlier. After being informed of a basic B&E to go examine, I saw a completely different setting from the one I had in mind. Nonetheless, it dawned on me as I waited in court room 4A for the trial to start again, that this was a life changing occasion and I realized somebody’s life hang on the balance and was actually in the hands of the his lawyer as well as the jury. I strolled into the court room at 1:18 PM, noticed there were only the attorneys of the defense as well as the people. Apart from that, a map with points drawn in various colors, hang alongside the wall on an easel, for communicating space between various locations. Finally, Judge Honor Nanci Grant arrived in the court with the jury in tow and immediately after settling, the trial begun with the swearing in of witnesses for the people. Firstly, the police detective responsible for the lawsuit as well as arrest of the defendant had been called in by the prosecutor. Primarily, the questioning of the detective focused on the map discussing the distance from the point of arrest together with a school roughly 400 feet away as the witness narrated. The point of arrest then began to be called the “18 and Allison” home. Subsequently, the detective was questioned about what was discovered in custody of defendant. The detective responded that he together with his colleagues stumbled upon lottery tickets concealed in a manner to be utilized as pouch something that proved a plan to distribute heroin. Alongside the lottery “pouches” the police further discovered 39 tenths of a gram of “normal quality” heroin having a street worth of $390. Thus the officer was convinced to consider that the quantity was doubtful and it would have dawned on any other officer that the defendant also had intention to distribute versus basically being in possession of the drugs. More evidence was brought into the lawsuit, for instance letters to the defendant. My assumption was that the prosecutor used them to confirm defendant’ residence at the time. Included were photographs showing the defendant’s shoes together with the table having the items on it, on the night of the raid. Eventually, the prosecutor questioned the witness if there was something unusual about the picture and if he could identify the shoes of the fateful day. He claimed that the only thing he had forgotten was the wad of notes on the table in one of the pictures, which afterwards turned out to be crucial, together with the shoes in the picture were on the feet of Mr. Bailey in the court room the trial day. Subsequently, after the people had cross examined the witness, the detective was cross-examined by the defense. At first, the defense enquired detective’s role on the case. He answered that he was tasked with validating as well as investigating evidence collected at the scene together with the taken photographs. The defense further enquired about the letters written to the defendant and proved that they were mailed from Oakland County jail from 3 women. It then dawned on me that the discussion was trying to prove defendant’s habitation at this locality. Following her enquiry about the letters, she continued enquiring about the possibility of utility bills sent to the defendant, of which the witness responded in the negative. She then directly enquired if there was anyone who attempted looking for anything to confirm proof of habitation at the scene, to which the witness answered in the affirmative, even though there was nothing discovered. Following proving of residency the defense then proceeded to police entry into the home. Thus, the witness confirmed that the police had a search warrant and stayed for some “reasonable” time for the door response from the defendant before engaging in forced entry into the residence. Responding to the defense, the witness claimed that he was third in order of arrival at the residence and found the defendant on the sofa alone watching television. The defense wanted to know if the client was shocked but the witness answered that he had no idea of how he felt. At this juncture, there was objection from the people since the witness could only speculate of how the defendant felt the fateful day when the search was carried out. This caused the judge to overrule, something that prompted a response from the witness claiming that the appearance of the defendant was not affected by police entry. The defense further enquired what next became of the “long guns” as well as what was discovered. The witness explained, after securing the residence the long guns were taken back to the cars even though the officers still remained with their hand guns. In addition the witness saw at the scene a crack pipe together with choreboy, things that to him appeared to be drug gear. Afterwards, the people requested for approaching of the bench. After some time, the defense began interrogating the witness once more. This time round, the defense enquired about manner in which the client was handled by the detective. The detective elaborated how he orally read to the defendant his Miranda rights of which the defendant waived. Following his waiving of rights to stay silent, the detective continued stating that the defendant explicitly gave an oral statement to the detective. Nevertheless, the statement was not written down, hence no evidence of this statement or what actually the defendant uttered. The subsequent questions were mostly concerned with the scene on the night the police gained entry into the residence. The witness explained that the lottery tickets were found in a drawer with baggies. Alongside the tickets and baggies, a scale was also found in the kitchen which the witness claimed was a normal item in a kitchen. The witness clarified, that the drugs were found in the shoes of the defendant beside the couch. No finger prints were taken for the lottery tickets. Cross-examination of the people’s witness was exciting and there seemed to be a lot surrounding police conduct and their handling of the crime scene and defendant. I observed 3 key issues; residence proof, the defendant’s statement and rights, as well as the importance of the evidence at the crime scene. Since there was not any evidence to suggest the defendant’s actual proof of residence it would have been difficult for the people to prove it was the defendant’s place. Secondly, the police did not record everything in any form. Regrettably, the officer told the defendant his Miranda rights instead of reading them. It is then I realized how difficult it can be to prove something. I gathered the defense wanted to imply, the police intimidated her client, squeezing the statement out of her client for cooperation. Secondly, her questioning implied the police carelessly handled the evidence and scene and did not diligently investigate the scene. Lastly, the scene’s evidence was exciting to hear being brought up due to different perceptions the defense brought to the table. She claimed that lottery tickets are a daily item that can be purchased anywhere and such items as the choreboy, scale, and baggies found in the kitchen were items normally found there. Before excusing the witness, the prosecutor had a very short re-direct for the detective. Firstly, he enquired about the statement that defendant gave to him. The witness stated that after speaking with the defendant he explained what was found in the home and after telling the defendant this information the defendant admitted guilty and gave the detective his statement. The witness claimed there was no point of writing statement. I was curious to why there was no need for writing the statement as well as why the prosecutor failed to ask the same question. The prosecutor then rested and relieved the witness from the stand. The jury went for a break amid instructions not to discuss the case amongst them. The second part of the trial was interesting as well. The defense called the defendant Mr. Dwayne Bailey Lewis to the stand. Firstly, the judge read him several statements, explained it was his constitutional right not to testify if he did not want to, explained since the defendant got off parole within 10 years the prosecution could enquire about his earlier conviction of theft in front of the jury. Next, his attorney read several statements, warning him of the risk of testifying and that he had been warned at least 4 times in their meetings the implications of testifying. After confirming that he was comfortable testifying, the jury was sent back in to hear the next witness of the case, the defendant. Mr. Lewis was sworn in, ready to take the stand in his own trial. He was convinced that the jury would hear and believe his side of the story to demonstrate his innocence. The defense opened by asking the defendant if he had been charged with intention to deliver in a school safety zone, and he confirmed. Mr. Lewis, on being asked, explained that he had remained at the house partying with friends. The home was for two prostitute women, as he explained, he knew from around the neighborhood. Mr. Lewis told the jury that his home was on 78 Lafayette, not 18 and Allison and the reason he got mails addressed to the 18 and Allison location was because of his significant other, whom he did not want to see the letters. Earlier in the detective’s testimony, there was $720 on the defendant’s person the night the home was raided which was assumed to be earned from distributing drugs. The defendant said he earned that money through 3 days of plowing snow. The defense enquired about the shoes he had, the three days he plowed the snow of which he claimed he had Timberland boots, not the white Nike shoes on his feet and at the crime scene. Mr. Lewis also claimed he did not recognize all the drug paraphernalia in the home including the scale, lottery tickets, and other things found in the house. He mentioned the police found him sitting in the dining area reading a magazine and not living room. He also mentioned that his Miranda rights were not read to him and the detective called him a liar. He revealed that the detective tried coercing him into making an incriminating statement, and he never stated that he dealt drugs. Finally, I found the final question about how many people generally frequented that house, most important, basically due to the nature of business the owners of the home were into there were many people, who would be in and out of the home during the day. I realized through my observation of the defendant’s testimony, the defense was employing a “in the wrong place at the wrong time” strategy. The defendant had an alibi for the significant amount of money and the location at which he was found made it seem like anything in the home could belong to anyone. I believed this testimony may have raised some suspicion of the defendant’s guilt in the case. It was the people’s turn to cross-examine the defendant and refute his testimony. First, the defendant was asked to step out of the box for the jury to see his shoes. Defense objected, however it was overruled. The prosecutor then asked if those were the same shoes in the photo the night of the raid, which he affirmed but also disputed the detective’s earlier testimony saying he did agree with most of what he said. Mr. Lewis explained he had earned money shoveling snow with a company for residents and businesses around Oakland County. The prosecutor failing to get the responses he desired questioned the witness’s integrity by mentioning his previous conviction and his unfaithfulness to his girlfriend. This kind of questioning was a failure on the prosecutions part; wrong questions were being asked. The prosecuting attorney pestered Mr. Lewis about how he earned that much shoveling snow in 3 days. However, the amount of money Mr. Lewis made was completely plausible particularly with the kinds of shifts he worked in that time. Mr. Lewis plausibly answered each question raised about his work for the money which, in my opinion, cleared most doubt about how he acquired the cash. As for the refuting testimony against the previous witness, to me it seemed to be a matter of whose story the jury would believe more, Mr. Lewis or the police. The next part of the trial was the defense’s re-direct at which point, the jury had gone for another break and I decided it was time to leave. Through all of my observation and time spent at this trial I concluded something about each party up to that point. The defense attorney did an excellent job considering the people’s witness and testimony against the defendant. She asked all the right questions and gave me various perceptions of how to look at the situation as well as the facts. The prosecuting attorney also did well. His examination of the defendant however was not very organized and maybe it was due to a bit of surprise the defendant agreed to testify. His focus on the money itself and how it was gotten versus the evidence already in the home seemed meaningless to get hung up on. As for the witnesses, the detective answered questions directly and confidently. He had a convincing testimony. My own view however was a bit jaded in view of how police are regarded in society. One could have been biased and naïve to believe that a policeman’s testimony would be 100% trusted something which made me wonder if the people on the jury harbored similar thoughts. Generally Mr. Lewis made a good decision to take the stand. He made it harder for the prosecutor to prove his guilt by offering his side of the story and clarifying the kind of home and people involved with the home. The jury was very engaged, taking the occurrences seriously. This was not something that could surprise anybody, however, one need to appreciate that others seemed to appreciate the gravity of what was going on before us. The jury consisted of all Caucasian women, an older Caucasian male and middle-aged Indian male. Lastly, the judge was fun and interesting to watch; and she seemed to be smiling and laughing at times or just not paying attention. She did a good job as far as judging a jury case goes. Finally, my impression of the case and the experience as a whole was very good. It generally made one appreciate litigation and law. Mr. Lewis had a case that initially seemed cut and dry, but at different points had various twists. I totally watched and listened to everything going on in the court room. The experience had definitely exceeded my expectations. This case was an excellent learning experience and the best way to learn is by applying. Applying knowledge taught at classroom and listening for terms and understanding the process of a trial helped. Knowledge these things let me follow along and pay attention to the crucial details of the case and dialogue. There were many impressions of the case to be taken from my observation that day. Firstly, the prestige given to an officer swayed my own judgment; I realized I would have possibly believed anything he said. I also believed his ability in answering both sides concisely and confidently had an effect on how his answers could be perceived. One’s impression of Mr. Lewis’ chances initially and what you saw toward his departure had changed dramatically. After hearing the cross-examination of the detective and Mr. Lewis you could see room for mistakes. The circumstances involved with the household could have led to a mistake in identity of possession; the facts against the defendant may not have been his. However, Mr. Lewis could be guilty or not guilty; the jury could arrive at either decision. Finally, alongside appreciation for law, I gained new knowledge; I learned what a choreboy was. I also now see why that would be crucial to the case since it is a household item but can also be used for doing drugs. I further learnt the strictness of following the system when trying a case. For every piece of evidence brought up, there had to be permission from the judge to admit it or even show it to the witness. Lastly, one could not fail to appreciate the legal system in place for placing the burden of proof on the people and having the defendant innocent until proven guilty. Works cited Read More