In the general district court of Accomack, a civil case appeared before the court on the second day of January 2019. The plaintiff was A&N electric cooperative and the defendant Davis Fred junior at 9:00 am. I was unable to get the name of the presiding judge. Neither parties had an attorney representing them. The matter before the court was that of a warrant in debt. The claimant was suing the defendant for money owed. A default judgment was entered against the plaintiff for the cost of $84.00. The plaintiff had not appeared in court for the hearing, and the court ruled in favor of the defendant. The court had had a busy day, and the judge wasted no time on cases. The judge spent time listening to the presentations of the parties present in court. The arguments of the parties were straight to the point and precise, citing legal backing and evidence to support their claims. The experience with this case was rather mundane with little interesting facts. The defendant and plaintiff only approach the judge when called upon and allowed to. Interestingly, all the people addressing the court do so in turns and do not speak unless their turn to speak has arrived. It was a matter of substantive law, needing the court to award damages to the aggrieved party.
The next case was between the state and Sturgis Kevin Denell, a male suspect arrested and arraigned in court for the first time on 29th February 2016. In this hearing, the suspect had failed to appear in court, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him to be produced in court. The hearing took place at 1:30 pm, but it was not completed. It was set to continue on a later date. The fact that people choose not to appear in court is strange and rather unacceptable and unexpected. The court demands a certain amount of respect and seriousness that most people do not accord it. Considering that the court’s ultimate goal is to administer justice, people should give it the chance to deliberate over matters and come up with the justest solutions. The judge in the case was nonchalant and had seemingly been through this a thousand times before. The cases passed by quickly and the court gave no weight to the absence of suspects in court.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The next case is a civil matter with the plaintiff being Petit Ashley and the defendant was Crawford Tameka. Neither parties had an attorney representing them. The case was on 3rd January 2019 at 9:00 am. The defendant was brought to court on claims of unlawful detention. The court dismissed the case and brought it to an abrupt end. The arguments brought before the court was intended to help the court reach the most appropriate decision. The people in the court addresses the court in turns and with precision so that the court is clear on the arguments that it is tabling before the court. The court, in this case, allowed the people to make their arguments for the case and against it. When making their arguments, the parties picked the things that were guaranteed to sway the court in favour. The court was indignant with the parties to the case, dismissing their case. The decision of the court is final although there is a chance for a dissatisfied party to appeal to a higher court. It is upon the parties to the court to make the most of the time they have before the court to make arguments as convincing as they can be and secure a ruling in their favor. Once the judge has read out the ruling and judgment, there is nothing left for the suit parties to do.
The next case was between Beach Marshall as the plaintiff and Johnson Henry and Johnson Wanda as the defendants. The two defendants were being sued for detinue. None of the parties were represented by an attorney. The hearing was on 3rd January 2019 at 9:00 am. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. The judge, in this case, was intense and critical. Since neither of the parties had a lawyer to represent them, the judge took charge of the hearing, guiding the parties on when it was okay to approach the court with arguments. The parties to the case had not been experienced in the court process and seemed clueless about what they were supposed to do and how they were supposed to do it. The plaintiff seemed to be emotional and ended up being carried away by emotions. The judge, however, was not amused by the emotional plaintiff and demanded sanity and decorum in his court as is expected. The plaintiff even showed a lot of relief when the court ruled in his favor.
The next case was between the state and Finney George Oswald. The matter before the court was a misdemeanor against Wallace, D for the crime of obstruction of justice. The accused was arraigned in court on the 3rd day of June 2018 to answer to the charges at 1:30 pm. The matter was regarding substantive law. And after the arraignment, the case was to be heard on the 5th of January 2019. The hearing was intense with witnesses being brought to court to support either party to the suit. The case did not, however, come to an end. After all the witnesses had given their testimonies, the judge went to deliberate on the evidence brought before him. The cross-examination by the accused person was hard to watch because the accused was emotional and asked questions that had not been asked during the examination in chief. Overall, the experience had in the general district court was interesting and educational.
My time in court was very rewarding and the cases that I got to watch were interesting and educational. Although the process was almost the same every day, each day came with its own set of challenges and obstacles and new legal principles for the court to deliberate upon.The legal matters before the court were generally based on the same principle but required different analysis and interpretation.
