A Jury's Trial

We attended the ACT Magistrates Court on 6th October 2017. We observed a criminal case.

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

In the United States, we let the people decide – not who the president will be, though. We let everyday people decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. The jury system has been around for ages (dating back hundreds of years in England) and probably will be for a long time. But is the system still working? Is it worth it? Should we continue to use juries to decide cases? The jury system shouldn’t remain an option because jurors tend to be incompetent, it’s not really worth the effort, and jurors aren’t professionally educated to decide on these cases.

Everyone was subjected to security including the lawyers and employees of the court house. Everyone was either in some type of uniform or dressed extremely formal, even if they were just spectators. Few people were in the court room, but not many. The judge, lawyers and people that were being represented had not still entered the building. Moments later the plaintiff, Dawn-Evans Donahue, and the defendant Joseph Donahue with their lawyers Michael Morris and John M. Makowski, entered the court room. They had taken their place on each of the court room to make their cases in front of the judge. The bailiff then told us to all rise for their entrance of Judge Polansky. We all rose and took our seats. The court had now been set in motion for deliberation. The judge was wearing the standard gown that is portrayed in films and in real life, there was no jury because this was not a trial court, this was a family matters case.

In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.

As I entered the court, the trial has already commenced so I did not really know how a real trial started. I sat in the back where the public sits, facing the judge bench. The courtroom was cold and quiet. Especially it was very small, much smaller and less impressive than I expected.. Everyone was in formal dressing code. There were just a few number of spectators and family members in the court room. There was a clerk who was typing everything what was happening during the court time. Judge Krocker appeared to have things under control and had the proceedings moving forward smoothly. She was a very friendly lady with short blonde hair. She was listening attentively. She spoke clearly and distinctly so that everyone in the courtroom could hear. Samuel Gallegos is a white man about 5 '8 tall. He looked quite nervous while some police officers were standing behind him. From what I understood, this case was really happening back in 2014 and the suspect has criminal history relating to assault of child and another related case to this case. On my left hand side were the bailiffs while some others stood observed

While the courtroom was relatively small in size, the front of the room featured a table for the prosecution team, along with two separate podiums, stationed just before the judge’s bench. The room also featured a juror’s box; however, no jury was present for the duration of Tran’s court session. To the viewer’s right of the judge’s bench, a team of court officials were seated, while a witness stand was positioned to the viewer’s left of the judge’s bench. Two bailiffs were positioned to both the left and right of the judge’s bench. In the empty juror’s box, additional court officials, including law enforcement officers, were

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

13) At the start the trust level was minimal. Most of them blindly voted guilty and when jury member eight pointed that out and some of them started to realize that there was a lot of distrust. I think the level of trust changed at about the half way point when the votes were beginning to tie. I think this was because some of them were realizing there was another side to this story and that it was worth listening to than simply

The Mexican restaurant chain has been hit with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena after a norovirus outbreak in California. The subpoena is part of an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal Investigations.

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The

The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a

In regards to this weeks discussion forum, I can understand why there may be a situation in which a prosecutor may destroy evidence of a defendant's guilt, but I do not feel it is acceptable in any situation that may occur. I would presume there have been cases; such as self defense, where the defendant may be in trial for manslaughter even though they were legitimately defending themselves. Given the nature of the situation, coupled with certain emotional feelings or biases the prosecutor may have towards the defendant, I could see where this type of action may occur. The moral lapse of judgment, coupled with the knowledge that prosecutors have immunity from civil liability from procedural functions may as well impact their decision making

The London Crown Court, the Old Bailey, is similar to a district court in the United States (Hirschel, Wakefield, and Sasse, 2008). However, unlike the United States, the judges and barristers (lawyers) that sit in the Crown Court wear white wigs, or a peruke, with their black robes when hearing a case. This is a symbol of the Crown Court that is different than the courts in the United States. This paper will discuss the different symbols as well as other cultural items of the London Crown Court that the author observed while visiting the court on May 23, 2017.