The Major Participants in a Courtroom
The major participants in a criminal trail include the judge, prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, clerks of the courts, bailiff, and the court reporter. At trail, whether if the charge is a felony or misdemeanor or even if the trail is a court trial or jury trail, the defendant is entitled to a fair trial before an impartial judge and a honest jury in an atmosphere of judicial claim.
The judge presides over the trial proceedings and exercises those duties and power imposed by the law. Many of the decisions are solely at the judge’s discretion. However; the judge’s actions can be reviewed by an appellate of courts. In most of the states, there are District Court Judges. These are judges elected by the people in the county where they serve. These judges are attorneys with experience in the practice of law. There are also Inferior Court Judges
They are elected by the people in the county where they serve but only a portion of the county is allowed to vote. The qualifications of these judges vary among states. Some judges may be a local prac...
Seymour Wishman was a former defense lawyer and prosecutor, and the author of "Anatomy of a Jury," the novel "Nothing Personal" and a memoir "Confessions of a Criminal Lawyer." "Anatomy of a Jury" is Seymour Wishman's third book about the criminal justice system and those who participate in it. He is a known writer and very highly respected "person of the law." Many believe that the purpose of this book is to put you in the shoes of not only the defendant but into the shoes of the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer and above all the jury. He did not want to prove a point to anyone or set out a specific message. He simply wanted to show and explain to his readers how the jury system really works. Instead of writing a book solely on the facts on how a jury system works, Wishman decides to include a story so it is easier and more interesting for his readers to follow along with.
“I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks” (Lee 304). Harper Lee is the renowned author of To Kill a Mockingbird which was inspired by the real events of the Scottsboro Trials. Throughout her novel, Lee indirectly references the case by creating characters, events, and symbols that resemble and contrast the case. These elements allow the novel to emerge with a more realistic and historic plot. In particular, the similarities and differences between Judge Horton and Judge Taylor, Victoria and Mayella, and the atmosphere of the courtroom are most prevalent. By examining these components one will be able to respect the historical features present in Harper Lee’s fictional literary phenomenon, To Kill a Mockingbird.
In the Texas court system, judges are elected instead of appointed like in the federal government. In the federal government, the president appoints members to the Supreme Court. This appointment then heads to Senate where the members of Senate will take a vote
The people directly involved with this case are Judge Lance Ito, the prosecution lawyers, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, the defense lawyers, Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro and Robert Blasier , the jury and the defendant, O.J. Simpson. The families of the victims have also been present in the courtroom, as well as other spectators and news media. This case has heard one hundred and twenty witnesses over a nine month period.
The United States district courts are the trial courts. This is where all federal cases are tried. In the United States there are 94 federal judicial districts. Each district court has at least one United States district judge, appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate for a life term.
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?
Throughout history there have always been issues concerning judicial courts and proceedings: issues that include everything from the new democracy of Athens, Greece, to the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony trial as well as the Trayvon Martin trial. One of the more recent and ever changing issues revolves around cameras being allowed and used inside courtrooms. It was stated in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management by Stephen W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr. that “the question of whether or not to allow cameras in American courtrooms has been debated for nearly fifty years by scholars, media representatives, concerned citizens, and others involved in the criminal justice system.” The negatives that can be attached to the presence of cameras inside a courtroom are just as present, if not more present, than the positives that go hand-in-hand with the presence of cameras.
The federal courts system consists of the highest court, which is the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress has three basic responsibilities under the Constitution that determine how the federal courts will operate. First, it authorizes the creation of all federal courts below the Supreme Court, defines the jurisdiction of the courts, and decides how many judges there should be for each court. Second, through the confirmation process, the Senate determines which of the President's judicial nominees ultimately become federal judges. Third, Congress approves the federal courts' budget and appropriates money for the judiciary to operate. The judiciary's budget is a very small part about two-tenth...
Now, the district court system is the beginning step of the judicial system. A good amount of the case handled by the district court system is either criminal or civil trial cases. According to Roger Miller, “trial courts that have general jurisdiction as to the subject matter may be called county, district, superior, or circuit courts.” The majority of their cases are to be handled in-county first before proceeding further through the court system. Just as businesses and organizations have a chain-of-command or protocol system the government has the
The first type of a federal court is District Courts and every state has at least one federal district court ("Federal Courts"). District courts are the overall trial courts in the federal court system. In each district court, there is at least one United States District Judge that was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a life term. District courts deal with both civil and criminal trials (“ The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorney's Office”). An example of a civil trial is if a person is suing the government or an agent of the government because the person violated the rights granted to a person within the Constitution. Criminal trial is a case that one breaks a federal law and they get arrested (“The Judicial Learning Center”). According to Government by the People, in 2009, there were more than 275,000 civil cases and more than 75,000 criminal cases. District court judges ar...
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
...ies. Depending on the states’ political culture, the judge is elected through popular election either with partisan or nonpartisan elections. The political culture of the state affects the judges’ capabilities to make decisions. Judges are to uphold strict interpretation based on past precedent but it is difficult with social pressure. For example, moralistic Massachusetts passed civic unions for gays, however, in traditionalistic state Georgia would likely deny gay rights.
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.