Preview

Court Observation

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
790 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Court Observation
Court observation
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rises. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative ,which is mostly preferred by many. In the Session Court that I attended, the physical appearance of the court is similar to other courts. The judge sits in the centre and in the presence of everyone at the front. The Interpreter sits in front of the judge with the Bar Table placed directly in front of the interpreter. On the right hand side of the Bar Table is the Witness box and the defendant sits directly at the back of Bar Table. A police officer is placed on the left side of the defendant to guard the public and those present in the court. There is a divider between where the public sits with those involved with the legal proceedings. Everyone entering the courtroom will have to bow the judge as a sign of respect to the judge before they proceed to their respective seats. The role of the interpreter is to make sure the witness reads the oath before testifying in the case.
In the case that I attended, both the plaintiff and defendant were represented by their respective lawyers. As I only had the opportunity to witness the defendant’s lawyer to prove his version of the case, as to call witness and asking questions. I felt that he wasn’t effective when presenting his case as he fumbled with his words a lot and was not questions most of time to the defendant. This shows that the counsel is unable to present himself well enough to communicate his facts to the witnesses. I also felt that counsel has

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    The principal piece of the trail procedure would be the first appearance. In this the litigants are brought under the steady gaze of a judge to be given forma notification of the charges against them, to be educated concerning their rights, to be given the chance to hold a legal advisor or to have one named to speak to them, and maybe to be managed the open door for safeguard. The respondent if taken into authority must be offered an in court…

    • 976 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    This court case took place in the United States Supreme Court in the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff in this court case is Deborah White, represented by Amanda Babbitt and Jackson Walsh. The defendants are Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, represented by Benjamin Walton and Jordon Van Meter. Deborah White brought this court case to the Supreme Court in order to argue against the summary judgment filed by the defendents. A summary judgment is granted only if all of the written evidence before the court clearly establishes that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that the party who requested the summary…

    • 401 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In most courtrooms, there are groups of essential players that work together on a regular basis. They are composed of a combination of professionals. These professional are the ones which understand all phases of a criminal trial, and they all work together in fulfilling the functions of the court.…

    • 279 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Courtroom Oberservation

    • 612 Words
    • 3 Pages

    This court case took place in United States District Court in the Northern District of Indiana. This is court case number 82A04-8876-CB285, White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. The lawyers in this case are Benjamin Walton, xxxxx Van Meter who represent the defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern and Jackson Welch, Amanda Babot who represent the plaintiff Debbie White. The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern are seeking a summary judgment which is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously resolve a case without a trail. A judge grants summary judgment only if there are no disputes as to the material facts of the case and the party is entitle to judgment as a matter of law. (1) The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern claim there is no evidence to support that the bartender John Daniels saw any visual signs of intoxication from Edward Hart. This means the defendant isn’t subject to any legal wrong doing. The plaintiff Debbie White is requesting the court to deny the defendants request for summary judgment. The plaintiff claims there is evidence to show the bartender John Daniels saw visual signs that Edward Hart was intoxicated. The plaintiff claims that with the amount of alcohol Edward Hart had consumed in the time he was in the Tavern there would be noticeable visual signs that he was impaired. The plaintiff’s attorney claims there are four (4) factors of actual knowledge of intoxication which would point to visual signs of intoxication. Upon leaving O’Malley’s Tavern Edward Hart crashed his vehicle into the Plaintiffs vehicle causing harm to the Plaintiff and the death of her husband.…

    • 612 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Courtroom Observsation

    • 1477 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa are the defendant’s (O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs) representatives they are recommending the Court present an outline verdict to the bartender, John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern. There is definite understanding and helpful information defined in the Indiana Dream Shop Act which contains useful knowledge. Mr. Edward Hard did not participate or take on any behavior or actions that provided proof of intoxication. Debora White, the Plaintiff is in search of compensation from the defendants, O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs with the theory that Mr. Patrick Gibbs had concrete awareness of Mr. Edward Hard’s consumption of alcohol. (I.C. 7.1-5-10-15.5, 1996) cites that Mr. Gibbs the defendant have actual knowledge of the person being intoxicated before damages are allowed to be awarded. Practical awareness does not persuade the hindrance nor does individual awareness. Indirect evidence doesn’t support practical awareness only actual knowledge. Individual awareness can sustain the intrusion whereas actual knowledge has to carry through and support the intrusion. Observable dealings with the recognizable events of intoxication are prejudiced according to the 7th Indiana State Circuit Court. In the Supreme Court statue stated prior to the year 1988 common law tolerated practical awareness for intrusions and caused a change in the law for this not to be supported.…

    • 1477 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    6. How shall a lawyer act to opposing counsel and his or her party in court? What is the maximum penalty for violating this rule?…

    • 547 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    immediate plan of action for the arraignment hearing and speak on behalf of the client in court.…

    • 1017 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    courtroom between the victim, and the courts process itself. There are two pieces of literature used…

    • 1385 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Courtroom Observation

    • 2129 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Liberty University presented a case of White v. Gibbs which is about Mrs. Debbie White and Patrick Gibbs under the civil provisions of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. In this case Mrs. Debbie White sued Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. Because White and Gibbs do not live in the same states, the suit was brought in diversity in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. However, the suit will be decided under Indiana state law. The main goal of this courtroom is to argue the motion for summary judgment which is concerning the case of Mrs. Debbie White, Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. In this case, the plaintiff is Debbie White. Two moot court attorneys who are Amanda Babbitt and Jack Walsh represent Mrs. White. The defendants are Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. Also two other moot court attorneys who are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter represent the defendants which are Mr. Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern.…

    • 2129 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Another way our lawyer can help the defendant is explaining legal rules, rules that many don't understand. Knowing these rules and implementing them toward helping the defendant-such as "unreasonable search and seizure" --can help greatly throughout the defense process.…

    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Court Testimony

    • 674 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Hello judges, jurors, and everyone else present in this court room today. My name is Dr. Alyssa Diaz and I am an expert witness. I was called here to testify on this court case. Also I am here to inform you how examining a piece of hair from a suspect from a crime can help to find out who actually did commit the crime. There are some basic things that people should know about hair.…

    • 674 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Court Observation Paper

    • 420 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Courtney Lee, a 20-year-old woman, the defendant in this case, was charged with first degree felony for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a 13-year-old boy , a minor, she was dating. The initial bond was set at $5000 for each count, under the compulsory condition that she not be allowed around any minors. The case was taken back to court because the defendant dishonored the mandate of her release by being…

    • 420 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Out Of Court Hearsay

    • 141 Words
    • 1 Page

    As discussed in class a simple definition of hearsay would be an out of court statement in which the declarant does not testify in an effort to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words if someone committed a crime and came to me and told me I would not be allowed to testify to that in court because it would be considered hearsay. There has to be a way to prove that the facts are the truth of the matter. The court defines hearsay as being a statement made out of court, which is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The hearsay rule was developed in order to prevent miscarriage of just justice in result of accepted statement of an untested and unsworn statements from and individual not present in…

    • 141 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    For this service learning project I went downtown first to the Daley center, then to the Circuit Court of Cook County. While there, I observed various criminal court cases, most which dealt with domestic violence and abuse. There was one particular case that stuck out to me the most. Torense Arnold vs.Latrarice Johnson was the second criminal case, with the man being the defendant against charges of domestic battery, burglary, and felony. Latrice Johnson had described her brutal relationship with Torense as an abusive obsession in which she wanted to get out of. She had been dragged by her hair throughout their house and had nail marks on her hands and face. Torence then pleaded guilty and was held at a 150,000 dollar bond, Latrice was issued an order of protection against him and her siblings.…

    • 575 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    On June 10th, I had the opportunity to go to the SF Immigration court on Montgomery Street with a few of my colleagues. I expected the court to be in a standalone building but instead it was spread over two floors in a twenty-five-floor building. The security checks for entering into the court were moderate. Everyone trying to enter the court had to go through a general security check where they walk through a metal detector machine and have their bags go through the x-ray machine. Before we went through the security check, we had to inform the officer on duty that we came to observe the court. Surprisingly I didn’t have to show a state I.D. before entering the court. After clearing the security check, the officer helped us find a courtroom to observe. I was expecting the officers to be harsh and not very helpful but I was surprised and glad to see that all of the…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics