During recess, in the absence of the jury, Judge Kennedy discussed with the two attorneys the purpose of following series of questions, role of evidence, and the inclusion of the police officer as a witness. The sophistication, and experience of the judge was imminent as he took meticulous care to ensure all information being presented to the jury would depict a fair and relevant picture. While all cases at the District Court involved federal offenses, and dealt with severe issues of material significance, I thought the District Court proceedings were extremely slow paced. If many of the procedural questions asked by the judge were answered prior to the trial, each judge at the District Court would be able to go through three or four cases as opposed to one or two. An extremely low turnover of cases at the District Court can be a detriment to the legal system as cases are processed too long after the crime was
Each side presents their case. Each side will also attempt to discredit their opponent’s evidence. The judge or jurors in the case will then decide the outcome of the case. In this process, tradition says the truth will be found through this process. ("Federal Judicial Center", n.d.) The Dual Court System In 1789, the United States Constitution required the formation of the Federal court system.
At this time if the defendant chooses to have a counsel present, the counsel has to be present them from the beginning of the defendant’s court proceedings, through the end of the initial appearance through the appeal, unless the defendant chooses to waive there rights. This is governed by federal and local courts because in some cases there appears to be multiple arrests, and because of this Joint Representation is possible. This allows defendants to be represented by the same attorney’s. Sometimes the court orders separate cases tried to bring in a single indictment. Afterwards the arraignment is opened in court to make sure the defendant has a copy of their indictment, after the indictment is read and the defendant is asked to give a plea whether guilty or not guilty.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE JURY SYSTEM The system is believed to date as far back as Norman times and is thought to have been used as a means of gathering information for the king. It became more popular with the abolition of trial by ordeal in 1215. The system transformed from one where the accused was kept in a ‘hard’ prison until trail by jury was accepted (Statute of Westminster 1275) and one which consisted of jurors who were conversant or knowledgeable on the issue, to one that is fair, impartial and is comprised of non-specialist jurors. HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) the jury was governed by the Jury Act 1974 (JA 1974). s.1 JA 1974 states
Say a man or woman was witnessed shooting, stabbing, or even running over a member of his family or a stranger. The man or woman would be interviewed, anyone who was around that witnessed the crime take place would be interviewed by the investigators so they could make sure that no details were left out. Sometimes when an investigator is doing their investigation the suspect may not be known or you might not have enough evidence against the suspect to identify them as the murderer. If this happens then the investigation may go on for a long time sometimes even years before more enough information is found or the investigation can be officially given up on. Investigators will follow up on tips made by witnesses or through the community and individuals who know anything about a murder are encouraged to contact law enforcement in an effort to bring the criminal to justice.
The fate of another human being is in your hands. Now you have the jury. The jury sits there and hears everything that comes out of the case from both the defense and the prosecution and sums it all up. They then go and deliberate to see if they can come to a unanimous decision about whether the defendant is guilty or not. This can also have a moral dilemma involved.
He or she is responsible for ensuring the court proceedings are legal, and that the defendant receives his or her rights to due process of law. The judge does this by setting the rules of the courtroom and acting as a referee between opposing council. Although a judges’ most visible role is during a criminal or civil trial, he or she has many responsibilities. Prior to any court hearing, the judge is responsible for signing search and arrest warrants. Judges also deal with the issue of bail once established that there is enough evidence to hold a criminal trial against the defendant during the preliminary hearing.
The old man who first changed his vote acknowledged this admirable transformational leadership quality when he commented: “it is not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him”. A transformational leader is a role model: • He powerfully modeled having a thoughtful, investigative and inquiring mind to the rest of the jury members by re-examining the key evidences of the prosecutor and the 2 witnesses. Other members of the jury soon followed his example and started raising “reasonable doubts” which led to a unanimous “Not guilty” verdict. • He Frequently reinforces that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is reasonable doubt, then they should acquit the kid • This character has a very clear idea of what the goal is here.
The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others. Such conduct is generally deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. If the facts can support such a finding, the punitive damage issue is allowed to go to the jury.' Once the question has been submitted to the jury, the generally accepted rule is that the jury, in its sole, unfettered discretion, determines whether to award punitive damages and in what amount.' "It is the long settled and uniformly adhered to rule in our jurisprudence that the amount of punitory or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury, and, no matter what the sum of their * Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI.
Judicial decisions have also effectively created new crime as in Shaw v. DPP (1962) – offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, or R v. R (1991) – rape within marriage is a crime. Also, in contract and tort law, nearly all the main rules come from cases decided by judges. Many of them were made in the last century or so but still affect today law e.g. Felthouse v. Bindley (1863) – silence can not be deemed as consent (acceptance of an offer) or the neighbourhood principles produced in Donoughue v. Stevenson (1932). So how can judge create law through the doctrine of precedent?