The State of Hawaii vs. Mark David Chapman

Question One 

In general, the roles of a judge in the courtroom is to ensure that the trial process follows the law. For instance, in this case, judge, the judged ruled that the testimonies presented about Mark's intoxication was not prejudicial and would be admissible. On the other hand, the core role of the jury is in the trial to listen to the argument from both the defendant and plaintiff side. Also, the jury has to consider the testimonies as well as the evidence to determine whether the defendant should be acquitted or convicted. In this case, the jury convicted Mark of felony assault, DWI, and manslaughter. Also, he was acquitted of speeding charges and driving recklessly. The role of the District Attorney is to present witnesses and the evidence that will help in proving the defendant guilty. In Mark's case, the Highway Patrol presented the computer enactment. On the other side of the courtroom, the defense attorney will present evidence and witnesses who will prove the defendant's innocence. In this case, the defense attorney proved the mathematical errors that existed while calculating the vehicle’s speed. Although the judge is the most senior member in the courtroom, the jury plays the most pivotal role in the trial. Furthermore, it is only the jury that has authority to either acquit or convict the defendants for their case. However, while giving the verdict on guilty or not guilty, the jury should be unanimous. In the trial, the attorneys have equal roles where one side proves the innocence while the other side proves guilty of the defendant. Among the two side attorneys, the one who presents the most essential evidence and the best case that can convince the jury, often win on the case.

Question Two 

It is often said that the law enforcement requires a higher ethical standard than any other profession. Regardless of the requirement of such dedication in other careers, it is undeniable that the degree of expectation placed upon the lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers and the over judicial process is high. In other words, within the justice system, ethical standards are the guidelines for the conduct.

However, ethics seems to be more important to judges than any other practitioner of the judicial system. The judges have a fair interpretation of the law and make independent decisions without personal feelings or any other external forces. For instance, for the judges operating in Hawaii must obey and honor five ethical rules which include impartiality, non-biased decisions, no deviance from the law, non-participation in special interest groups, and uphold the law of the land as well as protecting conducts principles (Larkin Jr and Madras et al. 2018).

The ethic's role is also important to the conduct of the law enforcement officers. These officers are expected to make quick responses to the criminal activities and scenes and obtain correct legal evidence. It is the ethical responsibility of the officer to make non-discriminatory, law-abiding, biased decisions, and protect innocent citizens through justifiable calls. For instance, Sergeant Rodney acted ethically by notifying the prosecuting attorney of the errors noted in the speed calculations.

For the lawyers, defense attorney, and prosecuting attorney, ethics roles applies equally. If the defense attorney is defending someone who is guilty of criminal acts, it is ethical to represent them fairly and also ensure that the client does not make false testimonies. The ethical standards of the prosecuting attorney are to ensure the defendant is not prosecuted for the crime they did not commit. Therefore, the attorneys and lawyers should provide supportive evidence and accurate testimonies to justify their claims. In cases where evidence has been tampered with or an expert witness is biased, it is ethical for not presenting such information as proof against the defendant.

Question Three 

In every criminal prosecution, it is the right of the defendant to have a speedy and public trial by an impartial states' jury within the jurisdiction of the crime scene. Also, they have a right of being fully informed of the charges and witnesses against them and also have an ample time to get witnesses in their favor. This goes hand in hand with the right for the benefit of counsel for the defense. For the plea bargain offered by the district attorney, the defendant has the right to accept or decide for the continuation on to a jury’s trial. In a situation where the offenders have been convicted, they have the right to appear for their sentence and conviction as well.

Question 4 

Section 35 of Article 1 of the Hawaii State Constitution provides the rights of victims. These rights include:

freedom from intimidation, abuse, and harassment over the criminal justice system, right of conferring with the prosecution, and right to be fully informed of all the release, proceedings, escape, transfer, or recapture of the convicted or accused person, speedy disposition or trial, and a prompt conclusion of the case proceeding the sentence or conviction.

The other section of right under this constitution is the right to restitution and be briefed on the rights to be enjoyed by the victim. This includes being informed when requested by a peace officer on issues relating to the procedures and bail of the defendant in the criminal investigating department and by district attorney's office. Also, there is a right to be informed on matters within the court procedures relating to the preliminary investigation, the appeal of the case, and deferred prosecution of a case.

A slow criminal process would be outrageous especially for the family members of a deceased victim. With this, it is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution to protect and prevent the family from the interest in dealing directly with the case of their dead loved one. It is clear, regardless of the court sentencing or convicting the offender, the family will never get their loved one back. However, the quick processing of sentencing or convicting make the family rest assured that the justice has been served for the sake of their departed person.

Question 5 

In the current court system, plea bargaining in commonly being used. For instance, according to the data collected, there are hundreds of thousands of cases that are filed every year. As of 2012, 94% of the state cases and 97% of the federal cases ended in plea deals. The largest percentage of the convictions are guaranteed through a plea bargain ( Duncan, 2016). For some practical reasons, plea bargaining is prevalent in a way that the defendants have an opportunity to avoid the cost and time of making their defense at trial and harsher punishment. On the other hand, it saves money and time incurred in the prosecution process due to lengthy trials. Although it is often used to reduce the workloads of the district attorneys, it also saves resources in terms of funds allocated to the court system. In the same year, the Supreme Court ruled for the entitlement of an effective lawyer to the defendant to offer assistance during pretrial negotiations. This should be after the case have been heard and the defendant has failed to take plea deals from prior bad legal advice. However, it is clear that this ruling changed the manner in which plea bargains are considered and made. Unlike past decades where only the plea deals had to be written rather than verbal agreements, currently, the list of witnesses and all evidence must be released to the defense as a demonstration of their cases and also for the defendant to be able to make decision whether or not to take a lesser sentence or the plea. With this view, the plea deals in future they will likely be more prominent as the defenses are able to follow the trends and forecast the trials’ outcome for disclosure of the case prosecution. On the side of judges, plea bargains have been an effective means of dealing with less heinous crimes. As a result, it has helped in reserving limited space in prisons for serious offenders and who are a threat to the community.

Question 6 

The animated reenactment of the Highway Patrol computer into the CSI effect is because the jury was impressed by the technology. CSI features are often in TV shows which use high-tech computer models of crimes and other spectacular means that help to show evidence which is more often exciting to people. After the presentation of the computer-animated model by the Highway Patrol, it is out of this impression that jury dismissed the facts in the mathematical errors while determining the speed of the vehicle as proved by the defenses (Batra, 2015). Therefore, considering the crime shows popularity such as CSI, the expected of the juries these days is to be wowed by the evidence. In this case, it is clear that regardless of the errors while determining the speed of the vehicle, there was no disclosure for this mistake. Thus, no rectification could have been ruled out by the jury and they made the right decision in convicting Mark for his offenses. The fact is regardless of the vehicle's speed, driving while intoxicated is a violation of the law and more so he injured and killed people and thus, the need for punishment.

References

Batra, R. R. (2015). Judicial Participation in Plea Bargaining: A Dispute Resolution Perspective.  Ohio St. LJ ,  76 , 565. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ohslj76&section=20 

Duncan, M. J. (2016). Lucky Adnan Syed: Comprehensive Changes to Improve Criminal Defense Lawyering and Better Protect Defendants' Sixth Amendment Rights.  Brook. L. Rev. ,  82 , 1651. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/brklr82&section=50 

Larkin Jr, P. J., DuPont, R. L., & Madras, B. K. (2018). The Need to Treat Driving Under the Influence of Drugs as Seriously as Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Retrieved from: https://www.ibhinc.org/s/The-Need-to-Treat-DUID-as-Seriously-as-DUIA.pdf