For every aspiring barrister and solicitor, court visitation projects are very essential. Attending law sessions is not only interesting for law students but also educates them. During the court visits, students can observe and record several cases before the courts. Similarly, students can learn how court participants behave and administer their duties. Through this, the students will gain firsthand knowledge of various court proceedings.
During my case study, I visited the California Supreme Court in San Francisco. In the visitation, we were required to document our observations and experiences. Before the visitation, I learned from a colleague that the Supreme Court of California had scheduled its oral arguments in San Francisco on March 4, 2013. According to the Supreme Court of California’s calendar, several cases were to be heard during the day and the day after.
The arrangement allowed me to experience legal proceedings firsthand. Therefore, on March 4, 2013, I attended the oral arguments. In the morning session, County of Los Angeles versus Co. Employee Relations Command Boyette versus Habeas Corpus cases were heard. During the afternoon session, People verses Nuckles and People verses Beltran cases were heard. At the sessions, I noted all the accounts as they transpired. However, I was able to observe and note the People versus Nuckles case more extensively. Thus, I was able to report on this case in a greater depth. This paper seeks to highlight the People versus Nuckles case.
People verse Nuckles case was heard on March 4, 2013. The case commenced at 1:30 P.M. San Francisco’s community leaders brought the case before the court. In the case, of Nuckles, the defendant was accused of killing her girlfriend Claire Joyce Tempongko in the year 2000. The court was told that the defendant had stabbed his girlfriend several times in front of his children. Because of the attack, the victim died a few minutes later. Thereafter, the suspect escaped to Mexico to avoid being apprehended by the law enforcers. It took relentless efforts from the community leaders and the criminal investigators to locate the suspect.
The court heard that the suspect was arrested in the year 2006 in Mexico and extradited to San Francisco to face justice. Later, the suspect was convicted of murder. In the year 2011, the district court overturned the conviction. The district court claimed that the jury who had convicted the defendant had committed some mistakes during the conviction. Therefore, the district court asserted that the defendant was to be brought back to the court to face new trials.
On that day, the court was supposed to determine whether the defendant was to be charged for manslaughter or murder as earlier charged. During the court session, Nuckles confessed that he had killed her girlfriend. He told the court that his emotions led him to commit the crime. The defendant argued that her girlfriend had earlier aborted her pregnancy without his consent. He claimed that he stabbed and killed her girlfriend under intense emotion. As a result, he pleaded with the judge to charge him with voluntary manslaughter.
On the other hand, the plaintiff’s attorney argued that the defendant should be charged with murder. Based on his arguments, the plaintiff’s attorney was very skilled. According to the plaintiff’s attorney, overwhelming evidence had been presented before the court to prove that the defendant had murdered her girlfriend. Thus, he argued that there was no reason why the court should lessen the crime committed by the defendant by charging him with manslaughter.
The plaintiff’s attorney argued that if the defendants would be charged with manslaughter, the plaintiff would have been denied justice. Before the case ended, the judge told the court that the final ruling was not going to be based on intentions but rather acts. Correspondingly, the judge reminded the court that murder and manslaughter were capital offenses and that the people responsible for such offenses were going to be punished accordingly. Finally, the judge stated that the final ruling was going to be held in three months.
In my opinion, the judge was right in the way he acted. It would have been inappropriate for him to judge the defendant based on his intentions rather than on his acts. Therefore, if I was a plaintiff I would have been satisfied with the judge’s acts. During the court session, I observed that the plaintiff’s attorney and the community members who were present were pleased with the judge’s statements. Though the final ruling was postponed for 3 months, it was clear that the court was determined in seeking justice for the victim and her relatives. Similarly, during the court session, I realized that cases of domestic violence in our society are on the rise.
Therefore, law enforcers should ensure that the perpetrators of this violence are apprehended and charged in the courts to curb the ever-increasing cases. Equally, the courts should formulate harsh penalties for such perpetrators to act as a lesson to those planning to commit the crime.