For this assignment, I have watched several court proceedings that concerned different criminal cases. They took place in different courts, such as the Superior Court of California in the County of San Bernardino and the Macomb County Circuit Court in Mount Clemens. The severity of the crimes ranged from burglary to second-degree murder, and all but one trial (the one regarding the murder charge) ended in a conviction. With that said, in most of the proceedings where the defendant was found guilty, the defense was able to secure a shorter sentence than what the prosecution requested. The practical experiences of the proceedings both confirmed and challenged some of the information that I have learned about the structure of a trial. In this report, I will describe their experience of watching court proceedings and compare it with relevant theoretical material.
Experience of the Court Proceedings
Overall, the proceedings generally matched my expectations, being orderly and generally civil. The judge reminded those present about the court rules before moments that could create emotional reactions, such as the sentence’s announcement. The defendants were generally visibly nervous but stayed in control of themselves and let the attorney argue the case for them, remaining quiet unless asked. The prosecution and defense, while antagonistic, were civil toward each other and argued constructively. The watchers also remained quiet, likely because there were few of them, and they were likely close to some of the people who were involved in the case. As such, they understood the solemnity of the situation and behaved appropriately in the court. I believe that the proper procedure concerning behavior was observed on the part of everyone involved in the cases that I have watched.
The prosecutor was the primary focus of attention in the courtroom for much of the trial. They would reconstruct the case for the benefit of the others involved and incorporate evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt. While watching their speeches, I felt that the prosecutors engaged in a degree of theatrics to convince those listening of the validity of their case. In particular, they would sometimes dramatize the case somewhat, though not to a degree where it would be strongly noticeable. I believe that the prosecutors did so to establish a more compelling picture of their view of the case for the jury. With that said, they were aware of their limitations and kept the descriptions brief and consistent with the facts as well as the current theory behind the events.
The defense attorneys were generally behaving as expected, mostly limiting themselves to challenging the prosecution’s assertions and cross-examining witnesses. In the cases that I have reviewed, they would argue about any details where they would perceive a weakness, contradicting the stereotype of the passive defense attorney. As a result of their efforts, they were generally able to disestablish some of the prosecution’s claims, reducing the sentences that their clients received and obtaining a not guilty verdict in the murder trial. However, I believe that sometimes the attorneys would go too far in their cross-examinations compared to the prosecutors, pressuring witnesses on minor details such as wording to disorient and confuse them, then use that unreliable state against them. The judges stopped these instances in several cases, but in others, they let the attorneys continue for longer than what I thought was appropriate.
Overall, the judges generally took a hands-off approach to the case, directing its general process but not intervening in every interaction. They served as arbitrators that guaranteed order in the court and ensured that no party exceeded the limits placed on it. To that end, they would sometimes remind people of the power they wielded, which was respected through the maintenance of order. However, as was the case with cross-examinations, I think that at times, they chose not to intervene when they should have done so. I do not necessarily attribute these situations to some faults of the judges involved, as I recognize that people will occasionally make mistakes. I also recognize the importance of letting each side obtain whatever information they need to make their case. However, from my viewpoint, some of the tactics used in the courtroom were not justified by either their intent or their results.
The jurors were generally quiet unless they had questions, which the witnesses and lawyers would then answer. The cases were generally mostly straightforward, and so, there was not much confusion or need for questioning. As such, I believe that the jury was able to obtain a firm grasp on the facts of the case and deliver an appropriate verdict. This idea was supported by the generally high degree of agreement when its members were asked to raise their hands in support of the decision. Ultimately, while I have some concerns about the performance of several parties involved in the trials, I believe that they were conducted well. All of the relevant evidence and testimony present were reviewed in sufficient detail, and the examinations led to a verdict that was suited to the crime committed or lack thereof.
Comparison and Contrast
I believe that the prosecutors and attorneys performed their prescribed role well, fulfilling all of their tasks adequately. While their jobs may seem similar in many aspects, with both people cross-examining the other party’s witnesses and presenting relevant evidence, they behaved substantially differently. The prosecutors would act theatrically, while the defense attorneys would focus on the facts of the case and the various inconsistencies in it. I believe that this divergence is the result of experience, as the former need to establish a case and convince people of its validity while the latter seek to discredit it. As the two categories of lawyers recognized tactics that would make them more likely to succeed, they started using them more, whether consciously or otherwise.
The judge’s role was surprisingly limited, considering the theoretical importance of the role for the trial. They maintained the court procedure and decided on issues of law, but their interventions were generally limited. One possibility is that the judges did not use the full range of their privileges because there was no need to do so, as the trials were generally civil. In more controversial and high-profile cases, there would possibly be more disorder in the court, which the judge would suppress with the assistance of the bailiffs. Due to the judges’ reminders about the court’s rules and the potentially substantial punishment for disturbing the proceedings, the involved parties created few issues. As such, the judges did not need to exercise strict measures and chose to make interruptions only where necessary.
The tendency of lawyers to pressure witnesses on inconsequential details is a long-standing issue in legal practice. As Craig (2018) notes, judges are expected to stop irrelevant lines of questioning, but they also have to respect the accused’s constitutional right to cross-examination. As such, they have to consider what the questioner is planning to do in every situation, which can be challenging to do if the lawyer in question has not reached the point that they want to press yet. Moreover, the judge has to determine whether the questioning is productive and will lead to some substantial results. If they are wrong, the decision could harm the trial and skew it toward an unjust outcome. To prevent such an outcome and the responsibility that would come with it, judges likely only intervene when they are confident that the cross-examiner is being unproductive.
Most of the trials ended in convictions, with only one resulting in the defendant being pronounced not guilty. This bias may be explained by the small sample size of the trials that I have viewed, but there are other valid explanations. Di Bello and Verheij (2018) highlight the high conviction rate in U.S. courts, which they claim stands at 90% for federal courts, specifically. One possible reason is that most criminal cases are established through persuasive evidence or reliable eyewitnesses who saw the crime take place in detail. With that said, in such cases, many people will choose to take a plea bargain and not hold a trial in court. The proceeding’s purpose is to decide on cases where the accused believes they have a chance of winning.
However, the same reasoning applies to the prosecution’s side, as well, but more strongly than on the defense’s. The prosecutor decides whether to move forward with the case or drop charges. Similar to a plea deal, if they see the available evidence as inadequate to win the case, they are expected not to bring the case to a trial to avoid wasting the court’s time. As a result of these considerations, when the prosecution moves forward with the trial, they are confident in their ability to win the case. The high conviction rate is a reflection of the accuracy of this supposition. The other side of this phenomenon is shown by Mac Donald (2017), who cites 2007 statistics to the effect of 69 out of 100 people arrested for violent acts then being released. The lack of evidence that motivates prosecutors to drop the case is one possible reason for these small numbers of convictions.
Conclusion
The court proceedings that I have reviewed for this paper generally reflect what I know about its theory. Any discrepancies can be explained by the adaptation of theoretical concepts to real situations, such as lawyers specializing based on their experience or the judges sometimes letting the lawyers exert questionable pressure. Viewing the trials also made me consider the state of the current court system, particularly concerning the high conviction rate. Despite its seemingly high value, the system may be considered fair because of the cases that are settled out of court. Overall, I believe that the courts I saw follow the technical procedure appropriately, though I cannot claim whether they represent the majority or minority of the total number. However, there is always potential for improvement, particularly on the part of the cross-examiners and the judges.
Reference
Craig, E. (2018). Putting trials on trial: Sexual assault and the failure of the legal profession. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Di Bello, M., & Verheij, B. (2018). Evidential reasoning. In G. Bongiovanni, G. Postema, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, C. Valentini, & D. Walton (Eds.), Handbook of legal reasoning and argumentation (pp. 447-494). Springer.
Mac Donald, H. (2017). The war on cops: How the new attack on law and order makes everyone less safe. Encounter Books.