Introduction
Jones v. Hendrix (21-857) and Cruz v. Arizona (21-846) are the cases that the student happened to observe; they both occurred on Tuesday, November 1. Accordingly, the student observed two cases in the courtroom (Supreme Court of the United States) from 10:02 a.m. to 11:23 a.m. Thus, Jones v. Hendrix (21-857) began at 10:02 a.m. and lasted at 1:19:56; the judges were Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kagan, Jackson, Kavanaugh, And Thomas (Oral arguments, n.d.). Therefore, according to the outcome, the court found Marcus DeAngelo Jones guilty of perjury in relation to the acquisition and possession of firearms. In contrast, Cruz v. Arizona (21-846) began at 11:23 a.m. and lasted at 1:01:57; the case judges were the same as in the previous one (Oral arguments, n.d.). Ultimately, John Montenegro Cruz was found guilty of murdering a police officer in 2003.
How a Case Proceeds Through the Court System
As practice shows, case processing in limited jurisdiction courts goes through 5 main stages: initial appearance, arraignment, trial, sentencing, and appeals. Consequently, the Superior Court considers both criminal and civil cases. It is noteworthy that the juries decide the facts of a case and make a verdict as soon as all the evidence is provided and the laws related to a case are explained (How a case moves through the court system, n.d.). With the help of these judicial procedures, it is possible to determine in the fairest forms the measure of freedom and responsibility of a citizen in their complex relations with other people, society, and the state. In the US, the judiciary’s role is particularly constructive since judges are initially endowed with complete jurisdictional control.
Furthermore, the student could identify the following essential points in observing the court’s procedural aspects. Hence, the jury trial is one of the fundamental foundations of the American judicial system in general terms. As a rule, jurors are not “sequestered” and are not isolated, except for the time they are in the courtroom. In particular, it is essential to remark that the testimony of witnesses makes up most of the evidence presented in court. When all the evidence is given to the court, a defense party (or a defendant) may apply for a directed verdict due to the nature of the evidence presented by a prosecution (or plaintiff); this may be done even before the presentation of a defendant’s position. After the examination of the evidence is completed and the closing speeches have been made, the judge addresses the jury with a parting word (jury instructions). Subsequently, the jury must retire from the courtroom to the deliberation room to deliver a final verdict.
Correlation of Court Experience with Law and Justice
Without any doubt, the experience of working in court has a deep, close, and inextricable connection with understanding such concepts as “law” and “justice.” In other words, a set of courts of various levels ordered by law in the United States is intended to implement justice, which can be observed in practice. Moreover, the picture of reality by the student has to some extent, formed and developed a certain system of views and values for a competent and correct attitude to the cases based on the existing laws, rules, norms, and standards of behavior in society, as well as the principles of honesty and fairness. In this case, the court experience allowed the student with an unclouded mind to see the adequate, acceptable interaction of law and justice, determining the proper idea of the procedural aspects.
Connections
Combining theory with practice, the student came to the following conclusions and conclusions. Thus, it was noted that representatives of the court, seeking to make a just decision, use the entire arsenal of methods of interpretation of the law and monitor the appearance of additional meanings in articles of normative acts and other sources of law that arise in connection with the development of legal practice. The integrative theory of legal understanding aims for judges to use, first of all, a systematic way of interpretation. In the field of view, judges are not only laws but also other diverse sources of law. The norms contained in them should be built into a unified and consistent system of law based on the original criteria: principles, axioms, and presumptions. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written Constitution in force. The amendments related to minor changes to the constitutional mechanism were created more than 200 years ago. The Constitution is “rigid” in nature – amending it is a highly complex and lengthy process. The Supreme Court adheres to the principle of precedent in interpreting the Constitution to a lesser extent than in other areas of legislation.
Researching One Supreme Court Case
One should state that District of Columbia v. Heller is one of the most famous Supreme Court cases of historical significance. It is known that this case has created a precedent for the debunking of a stereotype that cannot go unnoticed and ignored by most of the country’s citizens. Accordingly, a precedent set was associated with the protection of the human right to keep and carry weapons regardless of police service by the Second Amendment (Ebadolahi, n.d.). Dick Heller, a private security guard from Washington, who sought the right to keep a gun at home, defied the strict laws of the district.
The judge of the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in this case; it stated that the “people” referred to in the constitution means the police, that is, all capable men who ensure general security with the use of personal weapons, thereby confirming Heller’s right to own and carry weapons. Accordingly, the outcome turned out to be positive, and in 2008 the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment to the American Constitution guarantees citizens a “privilege” to personal possession of firearms. However, the student discovered this precedent’s indirect influence on the courtroom’s observations, especially in the case of Jones v. Hendrix.
Conclusion
For the most part, an individual court observation experience is one of the most important and significant aspects of the professional reflection of a lawyer. It undoubtedly deepened the student’s knowledge and understanding of court employees’ work processes from the empirical method of cognition of reality. In addition, relying on the justice system, one should state that adopting the tremendous experience and knowledge of judges together helps to become more disciplined and responsible, as well as to establish and adequately build relationships with people. In other words, the student was given a unique opportunity to study the procedure of consideration and resolution of the cases “from the inside,” taking into account specific nuances and features that may be useful in practical activities in the future.
References
Ebadolahi, M. (n.d.). 5 historic law cases that set precedents. TestMax Inc. Web.
How a case moves through the court system. (n.d.). Arizona Supreme Court. Web.
Oral arguments. (n.d.). Supreme Court of The United States. Web.