My report regarding courtroom observation emphasizes on what I observed from the Essex County Veterans Courthouse located in 50 West Market Street in the New Jersey. Since some criminal cases, including youth cases may not always be accessible to the public, I had to contact the court so as to note the cases which permitted attendance and also the times before I could attend. On the day of attendance, I observed the entrance of the building to be magnificent. The courtroom layout appeared more complicated in caparison to the layouts of another courtroom I had attended before such as the Civil Justice Center. The building also seemed more old-fashioned and traditional contrary to the Civil Justice center that is housed in a fresh building. This could be as a result of architecture as well as the structure of the courtrooms.
The police were present in the courtroom and this made it more formal. I contacted the reception desk to find the timetable indicating the cases that were made available to the public. I witnessed a case in a courtroom that appeared to be a traditional one. The juries could see all the proceedings clearly as they sat in a high gallery. There was one raised layer in the courtroom for the judge. The center of the courtroom comprised of a depressed area for the solicitors and barristers to sit. Also present in the center of this courtroom was the defendant's box. An upstairs gallery for the public at the back of the courtroom could also be observed. In my opinion, the judge had the stereotypical image of a white, middle-aged male of the middle-class. As a matter of fact, white males of the middle class were the majority in the courtroom. No representative from the ethnic minority was present in the courtroom and few women participated in this case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This supports the view that restricted social background sex, status, and age forms the basis of selection of the advocates. Since this was considered a jury trial, it mainly comprised of twelve members, both males, and females falling in the ages between thirty and forty-five years. As described above, no ethnic minority was present. The juries were all formally dressed in shirts, ties, and suits and in addition, they constantly took notes. In my view, this was expected since the general assumption is that jury service permit the common people to take part in the justice administration, the juries are also under representative of the local community. In any particular case, the function of the jurors is to listen intensely to the presented facts then issue the necessary verdict. I’m in complete agreement with the assumption that the faith of the public is kept by the jury since the jury system has been in existence for a long time.
The independence of the judiciary was also assured by the jury system. Being independent consultants, they are expected to be leaders in the promotion of natural justice. The effectiveness of the jury trials sometimes may be questionable methods in terms of promoting justice because the jurors may be incapable of understanding the evidence or follow the law in complex and lengthy cases. People may frequently dislike serving on the jury as they are much expensive. According to Criminal Justice Act 2003 under section 44, in instances where the juries are unable to follow the case, the prosecution can be examined only by the judge. The fact that no reasons are given by the juries on their verdict is also another issue. There have been no attempts to completely abolish the jury system although many have suggested that the trials by jury be reduced. It is a requirement that explanation of every aspect of a case is done in a layman's terms.
A considerable amount of time is taken by the jury trials and therefore they can be unduly long. It was relatively easy to follow the case that I witnessed. It was about a fight that occurred between two neighbors. The prosecutor was a woman, and she prosecuted a thirty-year-old man, the defendant, with the offense that the man beat her up together with her daughter. A parking space available across their homes was the trigger of the fight. I observed that the prosecutor was not present in the courtroom, however, her witness statement was read. The court examined the prosecutor at the first hearing. Two advocates examined the defendant once he took his place at the defendant's box. He insisted from the start of his speech, that he never engaged in beating up of the prosecutor and the daughter. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that he recently received much threat and this made her terrified. Even though he said that he no longer walked around his house since the woman is dangerous, he added that the prosecutor attempted to struggle him instead of vice versa.
As a way of opposing the defendant’s arguments, the prosecutor’s barrister presented evidence to the court a doctor’s report that did not indicate any signs of such action after examining the defendant. Nevertheless, since the prosecutor’s intentions were not known and that there was a possibility that the signs of the struggle before the doctor performed the examination, it was decided that the argument was not precise. Every factor was taken into account by the judge and he appeared to be firm in her decisions. The juries on their part played a lot of attention to the case. He also directed the jury appropriately, and explained all the procedure of questioning and summed the witness's speeches again. The defender's witness who is his daughter finally came to the courtroom. She claimed that she was beaten by the prosecutor after which she started crying.
Many effective arguments were heard by the end of the case and all these influences the decisions of the juries for the defendant. The case was comprehensible and could easily be followed by the lay people. The fact that jury trials take a lot of time is regarded as the difficult part. The reason for this is that the judge has to explain everything in a layman's terms. The simple nature of the facts of this case surprised me. There was little reference to precedent and only the section of the relevant statute was stated. This was in support of the idea that courts function by discussing, questioning and deciding based on evidence. However, because of the lengthy nature of the case, it was scheduled to be concluded on a different day, and therefore I was not able to see the outcome. I believe that the defendant will be acquitted of all the charges by the defendant since they demonstrated sympathy for him. I’m of the opinion that the confidence of the public is increased by the trials by juries since they are an indication of democracy. The jury services are very essential and therefore they cannot be easily abolished. As I have observed, the courts act in an efficient manner when it comes to hearing different cases and coming up with accurate results. A questionable matter is whether the judges, juries as well as other legal advocates are allowed to sympathize with the public and truly reflect justice.
