I. Courthouse environment (50 words or less)
The courthouse environment was very busy. I didn’t think it was going to be that busy at the South County branch of Chula Vista. I expected it to be less busy because it wasn’t downtown courthouse; however, I was wrong. The superior court in south county division had three floors. The first floor is where I and others went through security. The second floor had several people in line paying fines or getting copies of things, and it was very noisy. The third floor was quiet and there were people in line for family court. I observed several attorneys, bailiffs, employees walking in and out rooms getting ready for their cases to be presented to judges in different departments.
II. Courtroom environment
…show more content…
Jury Instructions - complete this regardless if there was a jury at your hearing (100 words or less) Using the “California Criminal Jury Instructions” (available in Canvas or on the Web at http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/juryinstructions.htm (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site.) review the jury instructions for the charge section
XII. What are the jury instructions? Copy and paste the instructions here.
According to the Calcrim jury instructions people must prove for assault with a deadly weapon are “1A if force is with a weapon the defendant did an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person, and or 1B if force is without a weapon. The force used was likely to produce great bodily injury;” (2017)
XIII. Explain why the jury instructions matter in the case
Jury instructions are the way to talk to the jury. The instructions lay out the things they have to prove whether it’s the elements of their case, if they are the plaintiff or defendant. The jury can’t get it right if they don’t give them the correct instructions. Jury instructions matter in a case because the jury needs to understand how the law applies to the evidence that they heard during the trial, which they can give a verdict. Not only that, but it delivers information to the jury and how the information should be dealt with in the
The United States Criminal Justice system has a unique way of approaching and handling criminal trials. In criminal trials there are important court room members with specific roles and certain court room procedures that must be followed. The court room members include the jury, the judge, the prosecution, and the defense. Some of the procedures of a criminal trial are arraignment, preliminary hearing, the trial itself, opening statements, direct examination, cross examination, closing arguments and the verdict. Each court room member’s goal is to fulfill their responsibility and to help justice be served.
In each trial, whether it’s theft or murder, the jury all have the same duty. Their burden is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the crime they are accused of, or not. The jury is expected to take testimonies and facts into account and go forth with a decision from there. In Mary Bennett’s case, the jury must determine whether she is guilty of second-degree murder of her infant daughter. For the defendant to be guilty of second-degree murder, the jury must determine if Bennett intended to kill her daughter, made a conscious decision to do so at that moment, and was aware of the consequences of her actions (“Mary Bennett,” pg 5).
Observe a Jury or Court Trial Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Author’s Note Observe a Jury or Court Trial This court case involves a serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, convicted of killing about 17 men between 1978 and 1991 (Jeffrey Dahmer - Full Trial - Serial Killer, 2012). The jury is composed of seven men and seven women who were to determine if Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty of the multiple murders. The jury begins by ordering for a three week sanity test to determine if Jeffrey Dahmer was sane when he committed the acts.
The title of Chapter 2 is "Criminal Courts, Pretrial Processes, and the Exclusionary Rule." The chapter begins with a description of the structure of the U.S. court system, which is a dual court system. A dual court system means that there are both federal- and state-level courts who operate within their own jurisdictions. The United States District Court is the trial court for the federal system.
Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though most judges simply avoid the topic and do not tell jurors of their power to judge the fairness of the law and how it is applied as well as to judge the facts of a case.
The Judge read over her notes as the crowd took their seats. "It's the people of Tukistan vs Allison Cameron, Shelly Crane, Michael McCarthy, Emily Moody, Steve Moody, Sarah Rivers, and Melody Song of planet Earth," Judge Justice said. "The prosecutor is Samael Vallard. The defence attorney is Athena Eorum."
The differing personalities between the two courts has an impact on the courtroom workgroup ethic. Both proceedings displayed the effectiveness of the workgroups and how each interacts differently. In felony courts, “court actors” improve the effectiveness of the courtroom. Attorneys and judges that work with each other on a regular basis foster improved relations. As a result, cases have a higher probability of resulting in a plea and the length of disposition is decreased (Metcalfe 2016).
The American Jury System offers the United States citizens an opportunity to be proven guilty or innocent when a crime has been committed. The twelve person jury system was established in England hundreds of years ago. Originally this system was made up of twelve men and this was huge because they had the power to go against what the judge wanted in court. There are many vital points as to why our American jury system is successful; jury trials by the numbers, ownership by jury members towards the accused, how reliable or unreliable evidence is viewed by jurors, gender balance and the detailed screening process in which jurors are selected.
The jury system is a vital role in court and is doubted as a sufficient way to seek justice. Being an important aspect of court, potential jurors should examine evidence justly. The custom of a jury is to stay honest and true to the justice system (“Jury”). A justice system is a mechanism that is highly depended on all over the world. Although each country has its own judiciary, justice in society is the main objective.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
The types of defendants and the environment of the crimes they are accused of remain constant. There are also additional members of this court family who also take an important role in the system. This
The American jury system has been around for centuries but all of a sudden, people are trying to change it. Hundreds of years ago in England, the first of the jury systems were adopted. When there was a crime, the accused was brought before a judge and jury (B.E.). The jury, a group of twelve white men, from the area the crime was committed, heard the case and all of the evidence (B.E.). Those 12 men, decided whether or not the person being accused was guilty or not.
According to the legal system, there are eight steps in a jury trial. These steps took several years to be put in placed around the country. The eight steps are the "selection of the jury, opening statement of both sides, presentation of evidences and witnesses, closing statement of sides, jury instructions, deliberations, verdict, and sentencing" (Zalman, 2011, p. 35). The first step of the jury trial is the jury selections, which is extremely beneficial to help, determined which jurors should severed on this jury. Both sides allowed examining all of the jurors to determine if there any difference in interest.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
Going from attorney, defendant, and witness, an attorney should try and have a certain professional style to them. Like this week power point suggest, a sincere-like attitude with suave appearance defense or prosecution maybe passively influence the jury. In my own personal opinion, I would think the hardest part of being an attorney is to reword your evenings and claims in a non-persuasion tone. The ability to reform your words to sweet talk the jury without them knowing must be tough. This could also be the case with the defendants, though having a more sympathetic tone may also win over the jury.