Courtroom Field Trip to the Los Angeles - Case Study Example

Report on a Field trip to the Los Angeles criminal Courts My field trip was to the Los Angeles Criminal Courts in downtown Los Angeles. My aim was toobserve the murder trials in session at this court. It was reassuring that I had to go through two sets of security checks – one at the entrance, and one on the ninth floor at the actual courtrooms – in order to be able to observe what I had come for. Observed Case 1 The first few courtrooms I looked at were empty, but I finally found one that was busy. Judge Larry Paul Fidler was hearing a case there. Evidence was being presented and examined found at a crime scene using a series of pictures that experts had to comment on. I was lucky when a sheriff recognized me as a student, and offered to help me with some more information regarding the case during the court recess. Sheriff Steele told me that the case in progress was that of The People v. William Bascutt (BA212896). This was a murder trial: five charges of murder had been laid, and gang allegations were being examined, connected to the eighth-street gang. The Death Penalty was a possible sentence in the outcome to this trial. More than a hundred witnesses had already testified, and the trial had been in progress for about a month by the time I visited. Bascutt was the main accused, and a jury would decide his guilt and his sentence. If he was found guilty, the people could insist that the death penalty be instituted. In the events on the day of my visit, the examination of evidence was to establish a connection between Bascutt and a potential accomplice, Alvarado. Alvarado may have been directly involved in the five murders that Bascutt was accused of. I already mentioned that the case was being tried by Judge Larry Paul Fidler, who acts for the Los Angeles Superior Court. He is a high-profile judge, and has been involved in rulings on cases as well-known as the Police Department Bombing, committed by the Symbionese Liberation Army’s Sarah Jane Olson, and the murder conviction of Phil Specter. The judge’s career is an admirable one. He graduated from Loyola law School in 1974, and was in private practice for nine years. He was made a partner in the respected firm of defense attorneys, Weitzman and Re. From 1983 he served as a municipal judge for the Los Angeles courts, and became a Superior Court judge in 1992, on June 2nd. His being appointed to hear this case indicates the serious nature of the trial I was witnessing. Attorney Michael Brewer was the Defense Attorney in this case. He is a well-known litigator, now counsel to the Kraut Law Group. Previously he was a senior Trial Prosecutor, with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. He specializes in Criminal Law. According to the Kraut Law website, he is an attorney who recognizes that “even simple misdemeanors can have serious consequences for the individual facing a criminal charge.” This makes him give his “personalized attention” to each case. As I entered, the court was involved in examining a series of blood spatter patterns. A criminologist (Sheriff Steele told me that he was employed by the city, and working on this case) was on the witness stand. The criminologist was asked to recall if he had seen additional blood trails in the apartment building in which a crime had occurred, beyond the ones he was examining in the pictures. His reply indicated that since he had been in the building seven years earlier, he could not remember. District Attorney Fletcher moved on, but continued to focus on the pictures of the blood trails. He confirmed with the criminologist that the photographs showed the same building, and that the actual scene of the crime was shown by these photographs. He also confirmed that the blood evidence had been checked into the DR with the number 0314063510, and name: Louis Alvarado. Fletcher then pursued the events of that day. In order to refresh the memory of the criminologist, Fletcher prompted him with the word “coffee” – and the criminologist remembered that in an unusual gesture, he had been offered coffee by the neighbors at the crime scene. More exhibits were the shown mostly photographs of objects at the scene that had been filed as evidence. These were confirmed as pictures of the objects checked in as evidence by the witness. The criminologist also confirmed that all evidence is processed before it is signed in. A finger-print system is employed to ensure security and accuracy. A further set of exhibits was brought before the court by Fletcher – exhibits 275 through 284. He requested permission from Judge Fidler to examine these. Exhibit 275 was a photograph of item #28, in evidence, which was a 9mm cartridge casing. When checked into evidence, item #28 became item #36. Two photographs of the evidence confirmed as a spent bullet or projectile made up Exhibit 276. The next picture shown was of the kitchen area of the apartment where the crime had allegedly taken place, and evidence #36 (a notebook) was apparent in the photograph, Exhibit 277. Exhibit 278 drew the courts attention to a glass table, photographed three times, to show evidence #23, which was a live or unspent round in a leather case; evidence #28, another live round next to a bag of Cheetohs; and evidence #25, a magazine about guns. A series of pictures taken inside the small walk-in closet in the apartment was named Exhibit 279. Evidence items, #13 to #16 were recorded in these pictures – live ammunition, and magazines. When the criminologist expressed difficulty in remembering evidence item #14, the judge allowed him to examine the property report. This did not help the criminologist, however. He said that, although he was present when the items were collected and tagged, he did not write the property report himself. Exhibit 281 reflected detail of Exhibit 279 – it was a photograph of the closet floor. Close-ups of the items in the closet (Evidence #18 to #22) formed Exhibit 282. The balcony of the apartment was also captured as Exhibit 283, and the photograph showed spent carvings, and items used in marijuana cultivation. In the two photographs, Exhibit 284, the bedroom of the apartment is apparent, and a rifle is clear, lying on a pile of clothes. Once District Attorney Fletcher had gone through everything he required the judge gave permission for the defense to cross-examine the criminologist. The defense attorney referred to the photograph of the safe in the apartment. This had been checked into evidence under “Louis Alvarado”. Why, he wanted to know, had the safe been classified under the name of Alvarado, specifically. The criminologist claimed that he had known the name Louis Alvarado as one of the arrestees, as he had been told the name by the investigating officer. In further questioning, the criminologist additionally claimed that he had had no knowledge of the arrest, but had only seen the name “Louis Alvarado” on the property report. All of the items referred to had been checked in during at the arrest of Alvarado. When the defense attorney asked about the photo album in the safe, it became clear that the criminologist had no knowledge of its contents, and claimed that he had not gone through the album. The defense attorney challenged this, asking why an intriguing piece of potential evidence had just been overlooked by the criminologist. To this, the criminologist replied that he had asked a Detective Anguro to work through the evidence in the safe, as he saw no forensic value in this avenue of the investigation. The closing line of questioning by the defense attorney proceeded as follows: had the criminologist been called as witness involving Louis Alvarado; if he had found anything appearing to be drugs; and if there was anything in the apartment with the name “Louis Bascutt”. After replying, the criminologist was able to step down. A ballistics expert witness was called next. He works for the city as well, but was working closely on this case. Ballistics experts are able to identify, and comment on the random markings on shell casings. They can identify the tools used on the shell casings by examining the markings and impressions left, and even identify the weapons that shot the specific shells. Two photographs made up the first Exhibit – N101 – with #25 on the left (a shell casing) and #5 on the right (a test-fire casing). With a red pen, the ballistics expert indicated the lines showing similar lines on both casings, as points of identification. Three sets of lines were most similar, and circled by the expert. Next, a comparison was made between #19 – again a casing – and #7 – the test-fire casing. Matching lines of breech-face impression were found, and sufficient to make the determination that both shells were fired from a second weapon. The chamber impression was insignificant, and there were not relating pictures, since the ballistics expert explained that no distinguishing features were found, and the evidence was therefore not compelling. But the breech- face and a-spherical impressions were enough for the expert to conclude that there were two weapons – as shown by #19 and #25. After this evidence, Judge Fidler called a recess. Observed Case 2 I spent some time during the recess talking to Sheriff Steele, and then decided to look in on another case, on the same floor. Right next to Judge Fidler’s courtroom, was the courtroom of Judge Bob S. Bowers. Robert S. Bowers is a supervising criminal judge for the Superior Court of Solano County in California. I noticed the different set up in this courtroom: there was not a jury present, but the defendant was in the room. As I entered, there was a photograph of a body in a parking lot projected for the court. This was the victim, Rachel Bolay. A witness on the stand was testifying that she had been there at around 7:00am, and that she had not been there for a long time – around an hour. She also claimed that there had been no smell of gasoline in the air. What I was observing was the case: “The People of the State of California v. Erin Amie” (BA336601). Another witness was then called by the judge. She identified herself as Lachane Brown, the mother of the victim. She was questioned as to whether she knew where her daughter had been living in November, 2007. I assumed that the questioning was being carried out by a District Attorney, and later learned that he was District Attorney Edwin Wakabayashi. D.A. Wakabayashi was first licensed to the California Bar in 1998, and has been acing for the District attorney’s office for thirteen years. Brown replied that her daughter had been living in a shelter at the time, and that she had prior to that stayed with her in her home. Lachane Brown had sent her daughter to live at the House of Youth shelter in Pomona, and only had cell phone contact with her after that. The last time they had spoken was on the Friday before Monday, November 19th, in 2007. When the District Attorney displayed a calendar to Brown, she identified the last day she and her daughter had spoken as November 16th, 2007. She had last seen her daughter when she had been dropped off at the shelter, Lachane Brown testified. The District Attorney then asked whether Brown knew the defendant, Erin Amie. Lachane Brown replied that she knew the defendant through her daughter, Rachel Bolay. She had first seen Erin Amie on July 9th, 2005. Amie was, at that time, a friend and mentor to her daughter. Bolay had been about sixteen years old at the time, and Amie seemed to be helping her through some problems. The District Attorney asked whether Bolay and Amie had been dating – Lachane Brown replied that they were not. Brown was then questioned about her relationship to Erin Amie. Amie looked after Brown’s children. There are four children – three girls, including Rachel, and a boy. Erin Amie was living somewhere in Los Angeles – Brown thought the City of Commerce – with her family. Again, Brown denied that she had any knowledge of a relationship between her daughter and Amie, claiming that she believed that Amie was just helping her daughter. In 2007, Bolay had been experiencing some difficulties, and thus Erin was helping. On one occasion, Bolay had even taken half a bottle of aspirin, attempting to kill herself. But this had taken place with Brown, and the rest of the family present, not with Erin Amie around. Brown could not remember, however, exactly when this took place – she said sometime in 2006 or 2007. The District Attorney then began another line of questioning: Did Brown know what Amie had been driving in 2007? Brown recalled a white car, but was not sure of its make or model. Did Brown know that Amie had a restraining order in place against her late daughter? The Sheriff had sent the papers to the house, where Bolay had been staying before going to the shelter. Bolay had not gone to court in response to this order. Brown was then asked when she had first learned of Rachel Bolay, her daughter’s death. She indicated that a Detective Tenelly had contacted her. A “Gloria”, Erin Amie’s aunt, called Brown after the weekend of the 18th and 19th of November, 2007, on about the 23rd. Brown had met Gloria only once before face-to-face. The call was apparently made because Gloria had seen a bullet-line on the News, and had thought that it looked like Rachel Bolay. Brown stated that she thought that her daughter was fine, as it had been only two weeks after their last telephone conversation on the 16th. Brown paid no attention to Gloria’s calls (Brown knows “Gloria” as “Flora” she claims) despite the fact that Gloria made many calls. Neither did Brown contact the Police. On November 28th, 2007, the Police contacted Brown. The autopsy photograph is shown to Brown, and she identifies the person in the picture as her daughter, Rachel Bolay. Lachane Brown was then questioned by the defendant’s attorney, Javier Ramierez. Brown was shown a calendar again. She made a correction: now she believed that she had last spoken to Rachel Bolay on the 18th, not the 16th. This was a Friday, and she estimated the time of the call as about midday. The attorney asked Brown to confirm that she knew where Bolay had been at the time of the call, and she re-affirmed that it was at the shelter she had taken her daughter to. The follow-up question prompted Brown to confirm that she and her daughter had spoken every other day, via cell phone. The attorney asked whether Rachel Bolay had been allowed to have a cell phone, and Brown replied, “No, not really.” The attorney then tested Brown’s knowledge of the fact that Bolay had been asked to leave the shelter, and had stayed in a motel. Brown had no knowledge of these events. Brown said that Rachel Bolay had left her mother’s house on November 1st. It emerged that Bolay had feared for her life, had made the first contact with her mother, arranged to stay at home, and had stayed for about three weeks. Brown had discovered that Bolay was pregnant. (Judge Bowers has to intervene at this point, as Lachane Brown becomes more and more emotional and nervous. The judge calms her down, reassuring her that is not being questioned about her qualities as a mother, or her mistakes, but in order to help her daughter’s case.) It further emerges that Brown had to be rushed to the Emergency Room when she discovered the pregnancy – she had been so badly upset. When she questioned Amie about the father of the baby, Amie said that the baby was his. Brown responded with severe disapproval, and Amie was furious. When Bolay said that she wanted to get her things from Amie’s house, to move in with her mother, she left with Amie, who said that he would bring her back later. Brown claimed that Bolay only got back two days later. She showed her mother bruises, and her injured knees, injuries she had not had before she left with Amie. Brown stated that it was these injuries that prompted the arrangements for the shelter, as she felt that her daughter would not be safe at home. The final question from the defendant’s attorney caused Brown’s sharp “No!” She was asked whether she had told the Police that Bolay could not stay at home because she hit her younger sister. At that point Judge Bob S. Bowers asked the witness to step down. Personal Insights From my observation of these two cases, even though I did not see either one completely, I learned a lot, and many questions were raised in my mind. The insights I gained into how the US justice system works were valuable, and I now have some more knowledge of the California penal Code, too. As a foreigner, I was amazed by the wholesomeness of the legal system in the United States. There is immense humanity and flexibility in the legal system. Both my recent studies – the course in law – and the cases I saw have convinced me of this. In the instance of The People v. William Bascutt case, the expert witnesses showed how important forensic evidence is in proving the reality of the event. At the same time, I saw that it is possible for even an expert to make some mistakes – the criminologist had overlooked some evidence that could have become very important in proving guilt or innocence. In The People of the State of California v. Erin Amie, the compassion of Judge Bowers in dealing with the victim’s mother impressed me. He reassured her that she was only there to strengthen her daughter’s case, and that her own mistakes were not to be questioned. Her rights, as a citizen, a mother, and a witness, were protected by the court itself. I find it difficult to associate this kind of humane action with a “harsh” system, as I had thought it was previously. Before I entered a law class, I had some understanding of “the Law” as an abstract concept, with function to retrain people within society, and absolute power to retrain people. In my opinion, the law, more so than morals and ethics, was the restraining power in society. After completing a class in communication law and getting to be more familiar with the First Amendment, my impression of US Law has changed. In this country, the law provides specific rules which do restrain people, yes. But the same rules also give you the freedom to do things, without fear. The law, in fact, does not retrain you: it gives you freedom from restraint. This is not an easy concept to grasp, especially if you are someone who comes from my background. The two cases I observed definitely raised the question of the death penalty in my mind. While the death penalty is not accepted in all states of the US, the California Penal Code does allow for the death penalty to be imposed. Both the cases above did try crimes for which a perpetrator could be sentenced to death. Murder is a crime which does carry, as possible punishment, the death penalty. A gang-related, multiple murder, such as The People v. William Bascutt is examining, seems to be one for which a death penalty might be appropriate. The culture of violence, revenge, and loyalty in gangs may be considered by the court as even promoting murder. In the second case I saw, it seems that the perhaps violent, perhaps abusive relationship between two people gave rise to murder. The emotions involved may have been some motivation for the killing. This raised in my mind the difficulty of making a decision about actually ruling that a person should die for their crime. Does this imply that the law in California, particularly, is harsh or that certain crimes destroy so many lives that they should be paid for with a life? I do know that certain circumstances can prevent a death sentence being passed for murder. Self-defense, or acting in defense of another person can be accepted as legal justification of committing murder. Certain mental and medical conditions can also be used to argue that the murderer may not be responsible for his/her actions. Sometimes, even crimes of passion can be seen by the courts as justified. This brings me back to my point that the legal system, or the Law, is compassionate and flexible in the US. Being in the court and watching just parts of these two cases showed me that all available aspects of a case must be considered, if the defendant is to be tried fairly. All the lawyers I heard were enthusiastic and careful in their roles. They did not let any detail pass them by. The balance of the prosecution and the defense impressed me. Each question asked had specific relevance to the situation, and I would perhaps not have thought of the many directions and details that they did. Even the prosecuting lawyers were making sure that they were being fair and thorough, not just vindictively going after the criminal. In especially the first case I have described, I was impressed with the detail of the evidence that was presented to the court. Each and every possible item was tagged, numbered, and categorized. How would it be possible for a human being to remember each and every detail, as was clear from the trial, seven years after the event? The photographs of the details at the crime scene must have proved very valuable to the jury, to be able to understand the events of the crime. Also, as I have mentioned, the specific ballistic expert evidence shown was interesting. To be able to prove exactly which weapon fired a bullet at the crime scene must be one of the most important things in a murder trial, where guns were the murder weapon. When the attorneys were talking to witnesses, I saw how difficult it is to keep memories clear in your own head. The skill of the lawyers in showing up the mistakes and inconsistencies in the evidence given by witnesses impressed me. Although, I do believe the defense attorney questioning the mother of the victim, Lachane Brown, did try quite hard to discredit her as a mother, rather than just trying to prove that the accused, Erin Amie, was innocent of the crime. I am not sure that techniques like this are fair, but I am sure that they must sometimes be necessary. My sympathy for Ms Brown was aroused, though. She was a mother who had lost her child. She must have felt guilt, feeling that she should have protected her child better. Then this attorney was asking her questions about her actions to protect her child, and she must have thought he was accusing her of being neglecting of her daughter. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the judge’s response was very admirable. He was compassionate and reassuring. At other times, it seemed that the lawyers just keep asking very irrelevant questions around the issue. What is amazing is that all of these detailed questions seem to lead up to a particular point, like when I realized that District Attorney Fletcher had proved the use of two weapons in the crime. All the photographs of guns, and gun magazines, had seemed to be going nowhere for me until that point. The point had been proven that the accused in this trial, and his friends and acquaintances, were very much involved in gun culture, and that they were used to having and using weapons. I have to find out, after looking at these two cases, why one had a jury, and the other did not. The precise rules, and the order in the courtrooms, are very interesting to me and I want to look into these aspects more fully. It was also important to me to realize that the people involved in this process – trying criminals – every day, are so open and friendly. The help I got from Sheriff Steele was welcome. He also put me at my ease, and gave me information that helped me to understand what was going on. The legal persons – the judges, prosecuting teams, and the defense teams, were impressive. I enjoyed watching these people, with great experience, and excellent education, applying their minds to these complicated human situations. I am reassured that they represent the Law in this country, as they seemed to me to be fair and admirable human beings. The people I saw who were being tried, caused me some concern. They looked like you or me. There was not anything I could see that would make them stand out in a crowd, and let me identify anyone as a murder, or rapist. This was true of the people I saw in the courts, and more widely in the court buildings. Even though the gang-related crimes of the first trial I observed may have meant that I saw some stereotypical situations – apartments filled with guns, safes, blood trails – it did not seem that some situations were very different from ordinary. It is scary to think that this kind of crime, and many others, takes place right under our noses every day. Crime is committed by very ordinary people, sometimes, in very ordinary families, and in very ordinary neighborhoods. The experience of the court generally made me realize two things: we live in complicated, dangerous, and difficult times; and I need to be more aware of the world that surrounds me. The fact that crimes do occur around me, and that people around me are in trouble often, and definitely in need of help sometimes, reminded me of how blessed I am. I am able to do what I want to do, and live the kind of live I do. Crime can affect all of us so easily, as victims or even as perpetrators. I realized that my intention is to be able to offer whatever help I can in every situation that I experience. Read More