Abstract
This essay provides an insight into various court cases that adhered to different ruling proceedings. In the first case, the essay presents a case that depicts the unique processes that are followed by different courts. Secondly, the essay provides an example of a case where the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Lastly, it presents a court incident in which the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated.
Introduction
Formal decisions that are presided over by judges in a court are known as verdicts. On the other hand, trials refer to examinations of any evidence that adjudicators allege against a defendant. This essay examines various court cases that follow unique court proceedings in different courts. It includes cases in which defendants accept plea-bargaining as an alternative to trial and instances where a court wrongly accuses, grants a death sentences, and vindicates the innocent suspect.
Cases that depict the unique processes of different courts
Grobler Vs the State (433/13) [2014] ZASCA 147 9 26th September 2014)
This case was handled at three court levels. At the outset, the regional trial court considered the appellant’s personal situation to present a non-custodial verdict. This act of crime also encompassed family issues that involved his wife and children among other stakeholders. The regional court also confirmed that the case took a longer period than it was expected before the adjudicators made judgment. This situation affected the appellant mentally and emotionally. As a result, the jury advanced a three-year jail term and house arrest (The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, 2014).
However, the high court averted the verdict and advanced a sentence of five years imprisonment to the offender. The presiding judge of the high court further confirmed that the regional adjudicator granted a fine that was to be paid by the appellant through a third party to compensate the petitioner. This situation flagged various disputes that led to time wastage. As a result, the high court suspended the order of the three-year imprisonment and house arrest. Indeed, the high court had no evidence to confirm that a fine was paid, as stated by the regional court. Consequently, this decision was petitioned in the court of appeal that ordered the high court to pass a non-custodial sentence because of the long process it had taken to preside over the case (The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, 2014).
Cases where the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial
Missing from an Officer’s First Guilty Plea: A Crime
In this case, an officer, Admir Kacamakovic, was accused of spraying pepper and illegal handcuffing to a man who had staged a fight with a colleague in front of a bar that belonged to his cousin. Further, the officer was accused of unlawful access to file databases concerning the man in question. Kacamakovic later negotiated with the government to plead guilty of civil right violation. The court proceedings took place in the federal district court. The officer issued a vague statement that the action he took caused injuries to the man. He narrated that he noticed two men who were fighting and went on to separate them by handcuffing one man. Through this action, the officer claimed that he violated the civil law.
The prosecutor insisted that he had not pleaded guilty of the crime through his statement. As a result, Kacamakovic was ordered to reaffirm his statement but he still failed to plead guilty. The proceedings went on until he reinstated his declaration of oath. The judge provided an option of proceeding to trial in case he declined to plead guilty. He was further ordered to shade more light on the incident amidst his breakdown in tears. At this point, he requested the judge to take his plea since this was a probable benefit to his family. This situation compelled the judge to ask him to admit his crimes against the defendant. Accordingly, he confessed that he did not handcuff the man to separate them from fighting but rather to revenge because of the statement that was made to file a complaint against him. Therefore, the crime qualified to be a civil violation. Both lawyers reached a consensus and accepted the plea (John, 2013).
From the above court proceedings, justice was not administered. It is clear that the ruling was based on unfair judgment because the client was forced to accept plea-bargaining as an alternative to trial. The prosecutor was a probable cause of lower standards because his ability to prove the judgment beyond reasonable doubt was questionable. A situation of overcharge was suitable for such a case. A plea-bargaining was only meant to force guilty supplication to the defendant since the prosecutors focused on winning the case at all costs (Hessick & Saujani, 2002).
Case where the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated
Seth Penalver, acquitted in 2012 in Florida
This case involves Penalver who was arrested in 1994 following allegations that he had brutally murdered three people. His case had no physical evidence to link him to the incident of murder. The police only provided vague and poor quality video evidence in which the appellant’s face was not clear. He was retained in custody until 2012, when the judge in charge of the trial acquitted him of the charges.
As for the above ruling, I support the decision to acquit the appellant of his charges because the evidence that was presented before court did not provide sufficient indication that the culprit in the video clip was Penalver (Rafael, 2012). Various reasons such as inadequate legal representation in court and police misconduct can lead to wrong accusation of the defendant. In addition, court incidences that involve deceitful prosecutors, racial prejudice, misinterpretation of evidences (as in the case of Penalver), and political pressure result in unfair judgment.
Conclusion
The above analysis reveals various court cases that followed unique court proceedings of different courts. It is realized that some defendants are wrongly proved guilty irrespective of their innocence while others accept plea-bargaining in expense of less penalties. Such trials are against the law because they do not lead to administration of fair judgment. Currently, court rulings take into consideration types of cases that should be granted plea-bargaining processes and their magnitudes. Nowadays, procedural court cases are conducted within minimal time. Those cases that require different court levels such as the high court and court of appeal are given ample time to ensure fair trials. Conduct of judges and prosecutors is also taken into consideration through thorough training on ethics of work to minimize cases of wrong interpretations and confession of lies among other unscrupulous practices that deny justice to both appellants and victims.
Reference List
Hessick, F., & Saujani, R. (2002). Plea bargaining and convicting the innocent: The role of the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the judge. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 16(1), 189.
John, M. (2013). Cop gets probation for cuffing man who threatened to file complaint: Admir Kacamakovic also pepper sprayed the victim, but that bad act was not part of his guilty plea. Web.
Rafael, O. (2012). Seth Penalver acquitted in 2012 in Florida. Sun Sentinel. Web.
The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. (2014). Grobler v The State (433/13) [2014] ZASCA 147. Web.