Analysis of Court Observation - Assignment Example

Analysis of Court Observation Question 1 In the case at the Supreme Court the following parties were present: The judge The judge-Honorable Derek Woodhouse), Bailiff, Court Clerk, Ms. Clare Robinson, the plaintiff, Dardi Limousines a San Jose Limousine rentals service firm, the defendant, the jurors and the attorneys, Ms. Torres Ross and Mr. Parkinson for both the plaintiff and the defendants. Question 2 In the second case at the Traffic court, the present parties were: Judge- Ms. Adrianna Chambers Bailiff, Clerk, Assistant District Attorney and the defendant- Mr. Carl Buford Question 3 Make a sketch of your courtroom (done) Question 4 Describe what you observed this day? Start with a brief description of the nature of the case. The first case in the Supreme Court was a class action suit with the plaintiff suing the defendants for 5 million US Dollars due to an injury sustained. This was a jury trial case with twelve jurors. Last week I attended the San Jose Supreme Court for the hearing of a civil case presided by the honorable judge Derek Woodhouse. The plaintiff was a young lady a one Ms. Clare Robinson and the defendant was Dardi Limousines a San Jose Limousine rentals service firm. Ms. Clare was represented by a very young attorney Ms. Torres Ross and attorney for the defendant was Mr. Parkinson a reputable attorney from a very famous law firm here in San Jose. The case was before a 12 panel of jurors; seven males and five female jurors. The most intriguing thing about the jurors was that they were of different ages and their ethnicity cut through the races in all of America from Latin Americans, black Americans, Asian American. The plaintiff was asking for 5 million USD compensation for injuries sustained due to the accident caused by the defendant’s vehicle. The second case was in the traffic court, the case was a drinking under influence (DUI) where the defendant was in court for reckless driving while under the influence of alcohol. I came to learn that the DUI is a serious misdemeanor than most people realize. The offense is worse if there was another life endangered at the time of the commission. In this case the Defendant was Mr. Carl Buford, who is an outstanding citizen, but he had taken a couple more beers beyond the legal limit and upon breathalyzer administration, he failed the test. Consequently, this prompted the officers on duty to take him into custody. In case such an action (driving while under the influence) results to the serious bodily harm of another human being, the perpetrator is usually convicted on a felony in the third degree as per the jurisdiction of drinking under the influence of alcohol. Question 5 How did the court proceed with the cases? Respond to every item a) Judge statements and procedures (general summary). I had never attended a court hearing before and I was fascinated by how things moved quite orderly in the court. I had no previous inclination that there is this feeling of serenity and almost “a holy place feeling”. I almost felt like I was in a church only that here the feeling was more serene. Despite there being no judge in the courtroom, everyone was quiet and those who were talking were all whispering; It is as if there is a written rule somewhere that no one should speak loudly in a courtroom. When the court clerk announced all rise, the court was brought to attention and the honorable judge entered in his flowing robes. He called the case and asked for the plaintiff’s attorney to give her opening statement. She was very passionate about the case and at the same time ensured that she held the juror’s attention from the beginning to end. Ms. Clare Robinson was run over by a limousine belonging to the defendant firm and as a result one of her leg was amputated. The court heard how the two parties had negotiated for settling the scenario outside the legal setting of the court until the plaintiff felt that the defendants were frustrating her efforts. The Plaintiff’s attorney stated that the defendants were slowing down the process that the both parties had agreed would bring justice to Ms. Clare Robinson. Keeping in mind that the statute of limitation for civil cases in San Jose is six months, the plaintiff felt that it was best to seek court intervention. Due to the emotions invested in this case, there were several, frequent warnings here and there by the judge. The judge warned several members of the audience that if more outbursts were made in the courtroom, he would hold them in contempt. I did not know what that was so. Later on, I read about contempt of court and I thought it was a wide leeway for judges and magistrates. Contempt of court is the only offence that is not catered for in the penal code. To imagine that a judge could hold anyone in contempt, and for whatever they deemed fit makes the judges appear like small gods. Consequently, the audiences were their loyal subjects and have to do as instructed or else suffer the consequences. The case had a remarkably swift flow apart from a few objections from the defendant’s attorney; most of which were denied by the judge, the plaintiff’s attorney took his time to explain to the jury the intensity of her client’s injuries and the implications of such injuries on her life. Afterwards, the defendant’s attorney, Mr. Parkinson’s took Centre stage, and it was obvious that he was disliked by most of the jurors. Most of the jurors could not hide their sneers at his remarks. The entire board of the Dardi Limousines were present in the court that day and all start immediately behind their chairman who was currently having a hard time in the hot seat. After the opening statement from both sides, the court was adjourned till late afternoon when both sides will call their witnesses to testify starting with the plaintiff. At 2 o’ clock in the afternoon, the court was fully packed and it was obvious that this was a high profile case with all the attention it was receiving from the members of the fourth estate. e) What did the bailiff contribute to the proceeding during the day? The bailiff announced the arrival of the judge and once he was seated, we did too and it was time for the first witness to take the stage. Plaintiff’s attorney called to the stand an eye witness who had witnessed the entire the entire accident and Ms. Torres Ross lead her through her testimony before handing her over to the defendant. It was evident that Mr. Robinson was waiting to devour the witness, but she maintained her calm in a very elegant manner and even made some jokes which the jury and the audience laughed at. The whole afternoon was marked by a witness after another from the plaintiff’s side and finally the defendant was asked to call their witnesses to the stand. By 5 o’clock in the afternoon, there were no more witnesses and the juror were instructed by the judge on how to deliberate bearing in mind that it was their constitutional duty to deliver justice where it was due. After 3 hours of deliberation, the judge called in the attorneys whom he had a short conversation with indicating to them a note that was obviously from the jurors. Whatever the note indicated, it was obvious that victory was on the way for the plaintiff because, although she tried not to show any emotion, it was obvious that she was excited. After asking the jury whether they had reached a verdict, the judge asked the foreman to hand it over to the clerk who in turn gave it to the judge. I must admit that he was quite professional since he wore an emotionless face hence he gave no indication whatsoever of what the verdict might be. The verdict was given back to the foreman and everybody could feel the intensity of the silence in the courtroom. The foreman stated, “We members of the jury find in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of 1.2 million U.S. dollars.” The courtroom went berserk. The Dardi board had already left the courtroom and Ms. Clare’s family was embracing her and congratulating her attorney on the big win. I did not want to go home immediately and therefore I convinced a friend of mine to accompany me to the San Jose traffic court. I must admit that this was by far the most interesting case I have ever had the chance to be an audience. The defendant was a 32 year old man and the reason for him being in the dock was reckless driving and driving under the influence; commonly known as DUI. The most important thing is learnt in this courtroom was Mr. Buford was a very cooperative person and in his defense he stated that this was his first offense and he had no previous convictions or run-ins with the law. He therefore requested that he be released on bail and if the court could be so kind to let him go he was not going to be drinking ever again. The judge listened without interruptions and followed up on Mr. Buford’s plea with several questions to ensure that he caught any lies if any. Since the court was already in progress when we came in, I later found out that this was the arraignment of Mr. Buford and the presiding judge was a lady; Ms. Adrianna Chambers. She released Mr. Buford after a series of questions and a serious warning that if he was ever brought before her on similar charges he will be spending several days in the county jail. Ms. Adrianna Chambers was either a very nice judge or we just caught her on a good day. Regardless, I thought the traffic court was more fascinating and a lot more interesting than the Supreme Court; especially to those who had just developed a new interest in the judiciary system or first time visitors in a court of law. I, however, do appreciate that the Supreme Court is often involved in high stake cases and probably that is the reason for all the serious, rigorous, and strict procedure that goes on in there. a. Defendant plea if you were in a trial case or in hearings such as traffic court and heard them? The defendant in the Jury case did not have to plead since the case was a civil case. In the traffic case, the plaintiff pleaded guilty of the offense. C. Describe the contribution of any attorneys or PDs present whom you observed. Attorneys from both the plaintiff and the defendant in the Supreme Court were objecting to remarks made by the other attorney incase it was leading or argumentative. d. What did the clerk do to assist the judge and the court? The clerk would record the court proceedings in case the involved parties wanted to refer to the proceedings in future. g. Was the court reporter a distraction to the proceeding? Was she/he asked to repeat statement? No he was not. He was very cooperative and at the traffic court, the reporter was a he, and did not distract the proceedings at all. Twice he was asked to repeat a statement for the judge. Who else was important in this court room during your visit? At the Supreme Court, there were members of the plaintiff’s family and very many high profile lawyer and members of the fourth estate. In the Traffic court, there were only a number of people who I assumed were friends of the defendant. The friends and relatives provided moral support to the plaintiff during the court process. 6. What legal terminology or phrases or actions or commons or court procedures were new to you? After looking up new terminology and phrases, what do they mean? If you were in court for your first time, what procedures were most important or of most interest to you? The commencement of court session procedure was new to me as well the adjournment of case. I learnt on whom the responsibilities of calling the court to order and identifying the cases to be heard is bestowed on thus, I learnt judicial vocabulary. The term, contempt was new to me. However, I came to learn this is when a citizen disobeys a judge while in the court. In addition, I learnt the abbreviation, DUI which implies driving under the influence of alcohol or any other drug hence it is an offence an offence under the laws of United States and San Joe in particular. Lastly, I learned of the Statute of limitation. This is the legal time period prescribed by law when a certain crime can not be prosecuted. The statute of limitation for civil cases is six months. 7. Was this court session of value to you? List 2 or 3 ways it was or was not of value? Was there something you heard or observed that the entire class should hear about? Why? If you were to go to court as a participant sometime in the future, in what way does this experience help you? Yes, the court session was very important to me because I learnt that it was an integral part of the justice system. Its value to me can be explained by the fact that I can now follow legal proceedings without need for extra explanation of the legal terminologies. The second thing is that I am now more confident in the justice system after witnessing the due diligence of the judges and the lawyers involved in both cases. If I were to go to court in the future I will be very confident and would not feel like a stranger because I am familiar with court proceedings. This will help in reducing anxiety and booting my self-confidence. 8. What other observation / events / commons do you feel important to report? I learnt that a courtroom should be highly respected because it is the sanctuary of our judicial system and the backbone of the justice that is sought by so many people. Another important thing to note is that a good and competent attorney can make a difference in one’s case. A passionate attorney who cares about their clients ensures that they deliver the best defense for their client. The manner in which he presents his arguments determines how the judges perceive the plaintiff’s situation. Read More