Cumberland County Courtroom Summary by Sue King For Criminal Justice 330-D03 LUO George Buzzy May 4, 2012 Cumberland County Courtroom Summary On May 1, 2012 at approximately 4:10pm in courtroom 352-A in the Cumberland County courthouse several cases was observed by this learner. The Cases observed were criminal cases which did not take on a jury; but all other parties in the courtroom group were present. This learner observed all parties involved, the legal issues, all evidence presented, the final outcome of the case, the rationale that was given for the sentence imposed; this learner will also reflect on the overall criminal process governing the cases observed. The Courtroom and the Work Group The Courtroom that this learner observed was located downtown Fayetteville North Carolina; the courthouse set in the middle of downtown Fayetteville; the courtroom was courtroom number 352A. When entering the courtroom this learner observed the regular courtroom work group and how all parties where in place.
Going before a grand jury is favorable to the prosecutor because the jury only hears what the prosecutor has to say and will then deliberate whether the case should go to trial or not. Before a preliminary hearing ever occurs the prosecutor has to file a complaint within forty-eight hours following the defendant’s arrest. At the preliminary hearing, the hearing judge will seek to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. All of the witnesses are brought to the court and the defense will cross examine the witnesses. During the hearing the defense will motion to suppress any evidence against them that could lead to a guilty plea.
The “Miranda” warning is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman 10 days earlier. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against
As attorneys attempt to proceed with the closing arguments, it is important that the summarization of the case along with all pieces of evidence be presented in a strong persuasive manner that shows validity based on the elements of the case and should be given in a precise organized way. In order to draw the attention of the jury and to have a direct communication to the jury, it is important that the attorneys not use the podium but instead walk the floor of the court room freely but to not be within 6 feet of the jury in order to not encroach their
or a real life experience, at some point in time everybody has heard a police officer read a suspect their rights. The Miranda warning is given by police officers to inform you of your rights. But where did the Miranda warning get its start, and what rights does it actually protect? In 1963 Phoenix, Arizona resident, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested on charges of rape, kidnap, and burglary. During a grueling two hour-long interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to these crimes (McBride, 2006).
In most cases there are a few who choose to represent themselves. In the constitution it states that an individual accused of a crime has the right to a counsel, but does not sate if a counsel will be provided. Individuals with money to hire an attorney would be represented by one. The rights to a counsel has been through many changes during the 20th century, it was no longer a restriction for those that were unable to afford an attorney or adults, the rights to a counsel was restricted to criminal trials, but now this is no longer an issue. When does the right to counsel attach.
In fact, throughout the entire film, it is probably Davis’s amicable nature as well as cool reasoning that most persuades the jury members. He approaches the case in a naive style. He uses the phrase, “what if...” and “it might be possible” when he presents his ideas. He does not try to force his opinions on the other jurors; instead he just wants to understanding the reasoning behind their guilty verdict. Another example of a power tactic used by Davis is bargaining.
In Courtroom Work Groups the defendant are already presumed to be guilty and the rest of the group work together to come to an agreement on the sentencing rather than to actually serve justice. The judge has overall control of the courtroom and the workgroup. The judge is responsible for keeping the order and deciding guilt or innocents of the accused. The courtroom workgroup interacts daily in many ways. It is the responsibility of the judge to oversee all that goes on within the courtroom and ensure that rights are not violated as well as rule on each case that is put before them.
In the case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978), the court stated, “so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Although there are many factors that come into play when a prosecutor is considering dismissing a case, the most prominent issues are state and federal resources, time, and investigative teams. When there is an insufficient amount of resources and time, the accused may be more subject to leniency from the prosecutors. Moreover, the counter argument for lenient behavior is that because prosecutors are not following through and charging certain cases, then they are not fully executing the law. Additionally, many people believe there is a strong possibility that some prosecutors will abuse their discretion privileges (Slobogin, p548). In the federal courts, prosecutors also have the discretion to join charges.
The prosecution, the judge and the defendant all benefit when defense counsel performs in the way the Constitution envisions. The broken public defense system in our State doesn't have to be like this. It can and must be fixed. As a result of these deficiencies, many individuals facing criminal charges are compelled to appear in court without a lawyer at critical junctures, such as when bail decisions are made. This often results in unnecessary or excessive bail being set and keeps people who cannot afford it in jail awaiting trial Many public defense lawyers also fail to: meet or consult with clients at critical stages in their cases; investigate the charges against their clients or hire experts who can assist with case preparation or testify at trial; file necessary pre-trial motions; and provide meaningful consultation before clients accept plea bargains, regardless of whether a charge is appropriate or a viable defense exists.