Introduction
Court observation entails going to a courtroom and closely following the events that take place during the case hearing. In this paper, I will focus on observations made during the trial of Ausar Walcott. The accused is a former NFL player. In the case, Ausar Walcott, the accused, is alleged to have punched and badly injured a man. The assault took place outside a Passaic night club. According to the court records, the offense was committed on June 23, 2013. In this paper, I will provide a detailed analysis of the events that transpired during the hearing of the case. Some of the information to be presented includes the names of the parties in the suit, a summary of key facts, the jury’s verdict, and the relevant legal issues.
A Description of the Proceedings
The final hearing of Ausar Walcott’s case took place on Friday, September 30, 2016. The case was presided over by Judge Adam E. Jacobs. The session was held at Passaic County Superior Court, which is located in Paterson, NJ. The attorneys involved were Miles Feinstein and Patrick Breen. Miles Feinstein was representing the accused (Markos 5). Patrick Breen was the Assistant Prosecutor who was trying the case. The parties involved were Ausar Walcott, the defendant, and Derrick Jones, the plaintiff. Both of them are from New York City (Markos 5).
During the court proceedings, members of the public sat at the back of the courtroom. I ended up sitting close to the defendant’s family. The position made me feel a little uncomfortable during the early stages of the day’s hearing. The reason for this is that I could see Walcott’s family members become emotional as the hearing commenced. As a human being, I could only empathize with these individuals. Their emotions and apprehension were understandable considering that they could not be so sure about the outcome of the case and the fate of their son. However, as I immersed myself in the proceedings, I tried to dissociate my emotions from my academic pursuits.
A Summary of the Facts of the Case
The facts of the case are that Ausar Walcott punched 24-year-old Derrick Jones on June 23, 2013. The allege assault occurred at around 3.a.m. (Markos 1). Mr. Jones is reported to have suffered a broken jaw and bleeding in the brain. As a result of the injuries, the plaintiff was hospitalized in critical condition. He was later transferred to a rehab center for brain injury treatment.
Legal and Factual Disputes in the Case
The case had a number of legal and factual disputes. Some of the disputes arose from the fact that the defendant was released on bail. The bail was granted even after witnesses had testified to seeing him punch the victim. Other sources of dispute revolved around acceptance of a plea deal and a reduction in the initial charge. The charge was reduced to aggravated assault (Markos 8).
As far as the bail was concerned, the prosecution opposed the court’s decision to set the accused free on a bond of $85,000 (Markos 7). The reason for this was the seriousness of the charge and the witness accounts. In terms of plea deals, the accused and his attorney, Mr. Feinstein, failed to reach to an agreement with the prosecution. The defense team declined all the offers made by the prosecution. Such offers included pleading guilty and receiving a five-year sentence for aggravated assault (Markos 6).
An Explanation of the Proceedings
During the hearing, Judge Adam E. Jacobs appeared to have things under control in his courtroom. He kept the proceedings moving and in order. He spoke with a clear and distinct tone to ensure that everyone in the courtroom could hear him. However, in some instances, the judge showed signs of impatience. The emotions were evident in his comments and facial expressions. He was especially impatient with the way the attorneys questioned the defendant and the witnesses (Markos 8).
The prosecution and the defense attorney engaged in heated exchanges at times. However, the judge was quick to maintain order in his court and calm the situation. Compared to the prosecutor, the defense attorney appeared relatively confident. He paused regularly during questioning to consult his notes. In addition, he asked questions in a direct and concise manner (Markos 7). However, both Feinstein and Green showed high levels of professionalism.
Jury’s Verdict and the Decision of the Judge
The jury found the defendant not guilty of second-degree aggravated assault (Markos 2). Walcott could have ended up in prison for up to ten years if he were found guilty. Based on the evidence presented and the jury’s verdict, the Judge acquitted the accused. The charge of punching and badly injuring the complainant outside a nightclub three years ago was dropped.
The jury took less than an hour to reach the verdict. As the verdict was being read, Ausar Walcott was overcome by emotion. Tears rolled down his cheeks freely. After the court proceedings, most of the jurors met the defendant outside the courtroom. They hugged him and shook hands (Markos 3). Walcott said that he felt blessed. He thanked God and everyone who supported him over the past three years. His attorney said that he was also pleased with the verdict. However, the prosecutor claimed he was disappointed, but said he will respect the decision made by the jury and the judge.
Legal Issue
The legal issue brought out in the case was whether or not the defendant was guilty of attempted murder and aggravated assault. According to the United States laws, the first crime carries a jail term of 20 years, while a person convicted of the second offense could be put behind bars for 10 years (Markos 6).
My Reaction to the Proceedings and the Verdict
As an observer, I can testify to the fact that the court proceedings followed due process. Everything was done in an orderly manner and all the parties involved were accorded equal treatment. The defendant and the prosecution teams were provided with a similar platform to argue their case and win the favor of the jury. In addition, the attorneys acted professionally throughout the hearing. As far as the verdict is concerned, I feel that justice was served for the defendant. The reason for this is the nature of the evidence presented in court. It was made apparent that the accused acted in self-defense. Walcott’s intent was not to cause harm to the complainant. He only threw one punch (Markos 6).
Conclusion
Court proceedings aim at invoking the power of a tribunal and ensure that justice is served for the parties involved. The hearing process is characterized by an orderly process, as witnessed in Walcott’s case. In this matter, the jury and the judge ruled in favor of the defendant. I observed the entire process and concurred with the court’s decision.
Reference
Markos, Kibret. Jury Finds Former Hackensack Football Star not Guilty of Assault. n.d. Web.