Observing Justice in the Courtroom - Assignment Example

COURT REPORT Name Institution Date Title: In observing justice in the courtroom, would you say that what you saw was the ideal of justice is done or the process of justice being managed? Outline: 1.0. Introduction 1.1. Definition of key terms 1.2. How to answer the question 2.0. Observations of courtroom proceedings 2.1. First case observations 2.1.1. Integration 2.2. Second case observations 3.0. Argument and analysis 4.0. Integration 4.0.. Literature review 5.0. Summary 6.0. Conclusion 7.0. Reference 1.0. Introduction The topic requires me to analyze the roles of different people in the courtroom. Consequently, I shall speak about the roles of the judge, an offender, a jury, and a prosecutor, among other people in the courtroom. Additionally I shall compare the observations on the roles of the above people in the courtroom with the similar role learnt in the classroom. 1.1. Definition of key terms; Judge, Jury, an offender, and a prosecutor Judge A judge refers to an official who supervises proceedings in a court. Jury Jury refers to a body of persons avowed to judge and offer a verdict on a case presented in a court. Offender An offender refers to a person who breaks a public law. Prosecutor A prosecutor refers to a person employed by the government to prosecute individuals for crimes. 1.2. How to answer the question In the report, I shall answer the above question presenting a critical analysis of legal proceedings by revealing the observations of full day proceedings in a local court and a district court in central Sydney. Concisely, my answer will draw from reaction and analysis, integration of the observations of the courtroom proceedings. 2.0. Courtroom Observations 2.1. First observations 2.3. Second observations 2.1. First observations (local court) 2.1. First observation (local court)  Case 1: 17 Apr 10:00 Mention (Police) Criminal Local Court Magistrate Knight  Parramatta LC Court 2.2 Parramatta R v SALLY XIAO QIN  the case about person has been guilty when he stole money from cashier at seven eleven petrol station ,, The evidence provided through record of cctv camera ,, the judge was showing him remotely from  Case 2: 6 and 7 of May 11.30 Parramatta on Drug Court No. 2.1  judge name Judge Gibson DCJ This court investigates numerous drug cases where users are aided by providing an anti-drug course to rehabilitate them. They then attend a graduation ceremony and receive a certificate for successfully completing the course and becoming clean of any drugs (which is determined by a drug test conducted by the rehab center). Case 3: 7 of may 1 PM Parramatta  Court No.2.2 magistrate court non the  The cases was about common insult to police officer n• The child position … protect children (prearrangement to visit, 100 meter a way from site).... observation  Decision (1) Judgment for the defendants (2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply (3) Exhibits retained for 28 days Observations There was an unusual occurrence in the court Friday morning.  All the seated defendants were put aside, and the court judge told him to move to the extreme left, then the police officers accompanied the defendant in.  Right away, she started a conversation with the other offender in an extremely deafening voice employing a cord of expletives and had to be silenced by the judge.  Friend & Co Lawyers, her representation team, talked to her.  When the prosecutor lifted her file, she said she had to protect herself due to the system and shouted that she was a Black- American fascist Nazi; hence, discussing on the master contest articulated her abhorrence for niggers, which was paradoxical.  There were myriad Black- Americans in the courtroom.  She maintained that she was wrongfully jailed, and the judge calmed her, directing the court officers to take away her. Later on, the judge produced a joke on that is why she desired some mental check- up; nevertheless, it was perceptible that something was a matter with the defendant. The sentence for both the second and first case comprised four eighteen months in jail and a fine not exceeding ten thousand US dollars. 2.2. Reactions and Analysis Mr. Litigator was extremely deferential towards the police examiner during cross-examination. I found this to be strange because I thought that habitually a defense attorney would be impolite to the prosecutor’s eyewitnesses. There was a next attorney sitting along with Mr. Litigator next to the defense table. Notably, I did not record his name because he sat on the chair with no single utterance and he consumed sunflower seeds throughout the entire time. I thought this was extremely abnormal and unsuitable manners for an attorney in a courtroom. The jury comprised of seven men along with five women. I was astonished that the jurors all appeared to be older Caucasians, because the defendant was approximately thirty years old and Black- American. It barely looked like a jury of Mr. Defendant’s peers. Nevertheless, they did look to be conscientious and concerned in the case, which I was reassured to see. I once note d a trial where a juror fell asleep throughout the indication of a key witness! The jury was exempted from the courtroom after examiner Malone ended his indication. I could hear the jurors discussing piercingly and joyful while at the jury house. I found it attractive, and encouraging at the same time that the jurors were making the finest of the hard situation they were put in. Deputy Deaver (a bailiff for the court) was extremely helpful. He clarified the nature of the case and presented me with a replica of the docket entailing the particulars of the case, the details of the attorneys, as well as the charges. I was agreeably astonished to hear Investigator Malone give evidence about how he counseled Mr. Defendant of his Miranda rights and concerning his successive waiver, and I heard some debate regarding Rosario material that I documented from CRJ 207 with my instructor. It was encouraging to hear something recognizable from my studies. In contrast, there was a comprehensive discussion about incidental evidence, that I found puzzling and that I could not pursue at all. Integration The above court observations have reinforced my feeling from previous knowledge that a lot of what goes on in the courtroom is remarkably monotonous. I believe that the above notion emanated from the fact that the defense attorney's questioning was extremely tedious. Additionally, the attorney looked to mislay connotation in his projected activities. Moreover, I found it shocking that the Defendant opted for a trial, after pleading guilty to the police. I wondered if probably (as we discussed in class) the defendant resoluted to take his prospect at trial, regardless of the little likelihood of attaining victory. 2.3. Second observations (district court) The second observed court proceeding was held on 12 April 2013 at Time 4:00 pm. Court: Monroe County Court Judge: Gibson DCJ Accusations: Two counts on Illegal ownership of a weapon in the second extent Four counts for illegal ownership of a weapon in the third extent One count for attempted illegal ownership of a weapon third extent Two illegal ownership of a weapon in the fourth extent Observed: Jury assessment Observations I noted the straight examination and questioning for the prosecution’s final witness, Investigator from a Police subdivision. The Investigator confirmed about his interrogation of the defendant and the account that Mr. Defendant gave concerning the offenses in discussed. I also noted defense counsel’s motion for a trial order of dismissal and a conversation amongst the judge and the attorneys concerning the directions towards the jury prior to their deliberations. The sentence offered in the second case entailed six months in jail and a fine not exceeding one thousand US dollars. 2.2. Reactions and Analysis The courtroom was extremely small, significantly smaller and merely imposing than I anticipated. Consequently, I sat next to the defendant’s relatives; hence, I was a little disturbed. The judge seemed to have significantly acquired control in the courtroom, and he maintained a smooth running of the proceedings. He spoke clearly and definitely so that each person in the courtroom could hear. However, he displayed some annoyance in his comments and facial expressions when the defense attorney, Mr. Litigator, groped about during cross-examination. His aggravation was explicable, but it seemed unsuitable for the judge to show such emotions in front of the jury. The prosecutor offered a huge distinction to the defense attorney. She was extremely certain and abrupt, almost to the point of impoliteness. She did not mix up papers or take extended pauses during inquiring to check with her notes. She simply asked questions in an extremely straight, succinct way. Ms. Prosecutor appeared extremely specialized in a traditional dark suit, in addition to low heels. Her look in no way detracted from her presentation. I was, frankly, extremely unconvinced with Mr. Litigator. He seemed muddled and uncertain of himself. He spent a lot of time mixing up papers between questions, which caused each person (himself included) to lose the focal point of the inquiring. He conversed in a monotone sound and spoke extremely low that I significantly strained to hear his voice. Mr. Litigator’s look also was a disruption. His suit did not fit him nicely, and in my viewpoint, he needed to trim his hair. His unkempt look underscored the feeling that he was not extremely professional. 4.0. Integration It worthwhile noting that a concise comparison of the above two cases reveals that they have represented similar scenarios in justice administration. Significantly, I noted in the first case that, Mr. Litigator was extremely deferential towards the police investigator during grilling. I found this to be abnormal since anticipated that habitually a defense attorney would be impolite to the prosecutor’s witnesses. Similarly, I observed in the second case that, the judge exhibited some annoyance in his commentary and facial language when the defense attorney, Mr. Litigator, groped about during grilling. His aggravation was explicable, but it appeared unsuitable for the judge to show such sentiments in front of the jury. The above court observations have armored my feeling from preceding knowledge that a lot of what goes on in the courtroom is exceptionally tedious. I believe that I was left with that notion significantly because the defense attorney's grilling was so dreary. Even he looked to lose significance in his intended activities! I found it astonishing that Mr. Defendant opted for a trial, when he had pleaded guilty to the police. I questioned if possibly (as we discussed in class) he resolute to take his probability at trial, despite the fact that he had little possibility of winning because the D.A. did not present a sensible appeal bargain. Literature review Studies by Johnston have revealed that for a court to demonstrate an ideal justice, it has to adopt the fundamental concepts of fairness. Additionally he postulates that justice one should recognize that justice as accessible in a matter and should likewise be evaluated alongside a continuum. Moreover, he has asserted that he argue that in order to evaluate justice one has to consider the institutional transcendentalism (Johnston, 2011). Additionally, research work Sen have revealed that for appropriate practice of justice, reason must be brought into play in diagnosis of justice, as well as injustice. This implies that, a judge must justify his stand by offering a logical and rational ruling that is void of any doubt. Consequently, if to some degree, there are profound cases of mistrust or reasonable doubts; one can argue that reason does not come into play in the courts (Sen, 2009). 5.0. Summary In this report states am required to observe two court proceedings then later explain whether I would say that what I saw was the ideal of justice is done or the process of justice being managed. It is worthwhile noting that, through the above comprehensive analysis and description of the two observations in this report, it is evident that court proceedings have reflected only an insignificant percentage of classroom teachings. Notably, in the local courts as revealed in first observations, there are little traces of justice as compared to the local courts. Howver, one can conclude from the above observations that, administration of justice in the two categories of courts is almost similar. For instance, the criminal process and the ideals of justice are evitable in the two observed proceedings. Consequently, it is significant concluding that justice is merely managed in courts: hence, an insignificant number of defendants receive justice in their cases. Conclusion It is worthwhile noting that, according to the above- literature review, it is very clear that from the above cases, justice in courts only represents approximately seventy-five percent of the information we gathered in a classroom. For instance, the materials learnt in class provided that, all individuals in a case must receive equal hearing and must be given a chance to do an appeal if he/she wishes. Moreover, in the first observations of proceedings in a local court, exhibits were retained for approximately twenty eighty days. Concisely, one would confidently postulate that, in the courts, it is all about management of justice, but the ideals of justice are hardly conveyed in such courts. Significantly, in my observations I noted that often judges tend to offer decisions without conducting appropriate investigations. Consequently, the verdicts and judgments made in the courts do not proof beyond logical doubt that a suspect is guilty. For instance, the defendants in the district courts merely plead guilty in order to access an opportunity for an appeal. This implies that they have no confidence with the way the courts merely manage justice instead of doing justice to the parties’ defendants and the complainants. Notably, such a situation in the courts calls for affirmative action, as well as judicial reforms. My viewpoint at this point is that, in both local and district courts there is merely a management of justice but no traces of ideal justice. Bibliography Brown, M. (2011) ‘Imprisonment & Detention’, in Marmo, M., De Lint, W. & Palma, D. (2011) Crime & Justice: A Guide to Criminology, Lawbook: Sydney:p. 483-498 Goldsmith, A., Israel, M. & Daly, K. (eds.) (2006), Crime and justice: a guide to criminology, Sydney, Lawbook Co. Legal terms and definitions: retrieved may 9, 2013 from Johnston, D. (2011). Civil justice in the age of human rights. Cambridge, MA: Allen Lane & Harvard University Press Lumley, K. and Norrish, S. (2011), 'Exchanging ideas about aboriginal contact with the criminal justice system', Judicial Officers Bulletin, Vol. 23: 83-90 Sen, A. (2009). The ideal of justice. Cambridge, MA: Allen Lane & Harvard University Press Sykes, G. 1972 ‘The Purpose of Imprisonment’, quoted from D. Dressler (ed) Readings in Criminology and Penology, Columbia University Press Read More