The California Supreme Court has its headquarters in San Francisco. The court’s decisions bind all other Californian state courts. The court was established in the year 1879. During its inception, the court comprised of one chief justice and two other associate justices. Over time, the court personnel has increased. Currently, seven justices are serving the court. These law experts are appointed by the county’s governor and serve for 12 years. In my court visit project, I was required to attend a local courthouse and observe the actual court proceedings. The court was required to be situated within San Francisco.
After checking through the Supreme Court of California’s calendar, I noticed that the court was planning to hold its oral arguments in San Francisco on March 4, 2013. There were several cases scheduled on the day. These cases included the County of Los Angeles versus Co. Employee Relations Comm, Boyette verses Habeas Corpus, People verses Nuckles, and People verses Beltran. Out of the four cases, I attended all the sessions for the People verse Nuckles case. Throughout its sessions, I was able to observe and record all the crucial events. In this regard, this paper focuses on the People versus Nuckles case.
The people verse Nuckles case was scheduled to start on March 4, 2013. The case started at 1:30 P.M. San Francisco’s community leaders brought the case before the court. Before the case was filed at the Supreme Court, Nuckles, the defendant had been accused of murdering his girlfriend Claire Tempongko in the year 2000. The court was told that after the murder, Nuckles escaped to Mexico. After his escape, the community leaders together with the criminal investigators worked very hard to extradite the defendant to San Francisco to face justice.
In the year 2008, the suspect was apprehended and brought back to San Francisco where he was convicted of murder. However, in the year 2011, a district court of appeal in San Francisco overturned the conviction stating that the jury had committed errors during the first trial. Thus, the court asserted that new trials were to be initiated. Following this, the community leaders filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the district court’s ruling.
The oral argument conducted during the court session was to determine whether the defendant was to be charged for manslaughter or murder as earlier charged. The defendant admitted that he had killed her girlfriend. However, he argued that he was supposed to be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The defendant argued that he had committed the crime under intense emotion. Nuckles asserted that his girlfriend had irritated him when she told him that she had aborted her pregnancy.
The defendant argued that he killed his girlfriend without deliberation. Because of this, the defendant requested the judge to charge him with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. In the US, manslaughter carries a lesser sentence as compared to murder. As such, a person convicted of manslaughter is sentenced to three to eleven years. On the other hand, a person convicted of murder is sentenced to 16 years to life imprisonment.
The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the defendant should be charged with murder and urged the judge to focus on the defendant’s acts rather than his state of mind. After listening to the plaintiff’s lawyer and the defendant’s claims, the judge asserted that the ruling was not going to be based on intentions. Similarly, the judge asserted that both manslaughter and murder were lethal acts, and their perpetrators should be punished accordingly. In the end, the judge informed the court that the final ruling was going to be made 90 days later.
Based on his arguments, I noted that the plaintiff’s attorney was very skilled. He was able to convince the court that current domestic violence and murder perpetrators attribute their acts to intense emotions. Further, the attorney urged the courts to move swiftly and come up with clear guidelines on how to differentiate between manslaughter and murder to ensure that victims of these lethal acts achieve justice.
If I was the plaintiff in this case, I would have been satisfied with the way the judge acted. Evidence presented before court seems overwhelming. In this regard, the judge was right in stating that defendant should be charged based on his acts rather than his intentions. However, I believe that Tempongko’s relatives have suffered for a very long time trying to seek justice for their beloved. Therefore, the suspect should have been charged and sentenced by now.
Similarly, the court’s final ruling should not have been postponed for three months. Considering the time the case has been before the courts and the overwhelming evidence presented, the Supreme Court should be able to adjudicate this case within a short period. Similarly, with the current increase in domestic violence against women, the court and the law enforcers should move swiftly to ensure that appropriate laws are put in place to ensure that the crime is reduced.