The mesmerizing and awe inspiring moment of recently passed school boy like me when he enters in a law school would be witnessing some senior arguing his case in front of the judges and experiencing what a court proceeding may look like in a set up formally known as a Moot Court. Moots are fancy yet tricky and quite challenging. It is an oral presentation of a legal issue or problem against an opponent counsel and before a judge in a quite similar layout of that a court. One is required to thoroughly read the matter at hand, arrive at certain aspects that may act crucial in his voyage for getting the favored decision, submit his case in writing and then argue the same with reasons and argue the question of law, cite related judgments etc.
At
…show more content…
For those focused to practice as an advocate in courts, moots can be helpful beyond imagination. An advocate needs to follow professional etiquette, dress up accordingly, follow court norms, and respect the law and judges. Mooting teaches the initial procedural requirements like the basic understanding of the legal fraternity, and getting an opportunity to present the matter before bench in moots is quite motivating for students. Many law schools in India have started giving special focus on moots after understanding there impact and need in law students life.
Mooting teaches focused research, as one must highlight only on necessary information, try to relate events and cases, time management, also to remain on top of everything and above all, the feeling and experience that one achieve after standing in front of judges, getting their feedback before entering into legal field are quite persuasive.
Mooting gives practical experience of the court since a moot court is designed as a formal court and the procedures followed during the moot resemble that of the court rooms. Participants develop their speaking skills as they need to argue on the submissions advanced and are required to defend their side in front of judges through words that automatically acts as the development of the student in building a persuasive legal
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.
After listening to both sides present their case the judge will issue a ruling on the defendant’s
Lawyers presenting their arguments face the nine Justices are given a limited amount of time to present, however, justices may interrupt with questions. Abe Fortas, selected to represent Gideon, masterfully answered the justices questions while presenting the important points of his case. After the oral presentation, the justices confer in private discussion and select a judge to write the opinion of the court. For Gideon v. Wainwright Justice Black wrote the opinion and presented the court’s decision to overrule Betts v. Brady, a case he’d dissented on twenty years earlier.
The Brock Turner case is a very controversial case that spark debate on the subject of white male privilege and the abuse of power. People speculate that the only reason Turner received such a minimal sentence is because his parents are affluent and influential, due to their success and status as a white professional. He was found guilty and the judge gave him a very lenient sentence. Many people saw this as unfair to the girl that was raped and to everyone else impacted by this man 's crime. The judge 's name is Aaron Persky.
Nils Christie’s view on modern law is that due to specialization, victims have lost the right to participate in their trials. Lawyers are becoming too involved in cases, taking conflicts away from parties and turning them into property. Christie states there there is less attention focused on the effects on the victim and more focus on the criminal’s background. Christie also states that getting a court to function is difficult while there are specialists present. According to Christie, parties become uneasy with handling their own social conflicts where they know there are professionals present who they believe can do a better job.
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM Charles Town, West Virginia PROPOSAL FOR LSTD 299 RESEARCH PAPER ASSOCIATES DEGREE IN PARALEGAL STUDIES AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM SCHOOL OF SECURITY AND GLOBAL STUDIES LEGAL STUDIES & EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS BECKY DEKRUIFF 3112294 2017 I propose to the Legal Studies Associates Degree Capstone Professor a study of the following Topic, to be conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the paralegal Studies Associates Degree Program: Table of Contents Purpose Statement 2 Thesis Statement 2 Background 3-5 Significance of the Study 6 Conclusion 6-7 Purpose Statement My purpose of this research paper is to argue whether the act of searching a vehicle
From the Constitution’s ratification in 1787 through the 1850s, many American historians shared the consensus that the founding fathers had designed the Constitution the way they did because they were trying to protect the citizens and their rights. James Kent was one very prominent historian among this group. In his book, Commentaries on American Law (1826), he stated “THE government of the United States was erected by the free voice and joint will of the people of America, for their common defence [defense] and general welfare...and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness.” (Kent) Essentially, James Kent was trying to convey the point
Imagine how a court would be run if it was dysfunctional. With many pieces of evidence to solve one problem that can lead to months after months, just to say those words, “guilty or not guilty.” There was one case that caught everybody's attention and became very famous. In 1994, O.J Simpson was accused for brutally murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. He was sentence to court, and it took about 10 months to come to a conclusion as he walked out of court as a freedman.
COURTS The court system is made up of many operational parts that all work together to achieve an overall goal. For my courtroom observation I have chosen the State of Florida v Casey Marie Anthony trial. This trail took place on the 23rd floor of the Orange county courtroom in Florida which seats about 50 people. Casey Marie Anthony (the defendant) is on trial for the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony. She is being tried for first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to police.
From an early age I have always had an interest in the legal system, as a child of divorcees the legal system has always had an impact on my life. I have always dreamed about being a family lawyer and have hoped that through hard work and dedication I could make my dream a reality; enter law school, successfully complete the bar exam and utilize my knowledge of the law to help those who may otherwise be left in the cold by the legal system. As I have grown older I have a new understanding of the realities of just how difficult it will be to make my dreams a reality. When writing this application, I had difficulty figuring out what I can say that will set me apart from other candidates. I almost feel as though everything that I will say has been said before and there are most likely some situations that sound more sympathetic than my own.
The case of Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2013) 216 FCR 241 presents a valuable example of a real-life situation that highlights the significance of understanding and interpreting the law that applies to Australian Migration practice. The case was about whether a valid visa application has been made by the appellant in accordance with Regulations 2.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) which required applications for particular visa be made at an “office of immigration” in Australia. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE CASE: • The Minister did not consider Chen’s visa application for Class DF subclass 892 as valid because the application reached the Department’s Processing Centre one day after her existing
The relationship between the law and society affects everyone and everything. How the law is written and how it is acted upon in society are two different things. It is imperative, therefore, that we as citizens pay attention to and understand the importance of the relationship between the law and society as it affects both our own lives and the lives of those around us. We engage in and witness the power of the law and society everyday. The law is personal, however, the law is also discretionary depending on where you look.
Introduction Finders keepers, losers weepers is a childhood adage that means whatever is found on the school playground can be kept but there is no principle of law that supports an individual is entitled to keep something he finds, while the original owner bears the loss. The premise when something is lost by one individual and found by another has been expressed in various ways over the centuries.
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).