Essay on My Experience of Visiting a Courtroom

This report focuses on my visit to two courthouses which I did during the first week of March 13th from 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. .The first house I visited was The Fairfax Circuit Court which is located at 4110 Chain Bridge Road in Fairfax. It serves the residents of both the county and the city of Fairfax, and its worth to know that its the largest trial court in the state of Virginia. The circuit court has authority over various jurisdiction which includes criminal cases, civil actions, and appellate jurisdiction.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Before going, I ascertained that the proceedings were opened to the public. After inquiring with the bailiff present there if I could observe the proceedings, he said it was okay provided that I will not interrupt the court proceedings. I decided to attend to a case in courtroom 5J.The courtroom was filled with people ranging from the district attorneys, court clerks, public defenders, the bailiff , the judge and the public which include me.

The case presided by Hon Richard B. Gardiner was called at 9.15 a.m., and he read the charges to the defendant. The defendant was on trial being charged with causing death by a car accident after an head-on-collision which led to the death of a passenger in the oncoming vehicle.

The prosecution attorney by evidence of alcoholic levels in defendants blood reading .17 contended that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. He went forward to present the facts on how the defendant was earlier at a local motel where he had a couple bottles of beer before hitting the road. He called on the witnesses , who took an oath and asked questions which clearly reflected on the defendants error.

Next came the defendants attorney asking for the court to rule the case in favor of the defendant since the prosecution attorney had not produced enough evidence to prove to the court that the defendant was guilty. This judgment of acquittal was denied, and the prosecution attorney went ahead to make an opening statement. The defendants attorney argued that the defendant was actually sober enough to operate the automobile and it was the victims error that caused the accident. He, however, was not able to provide any witness and was therefore given the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecutors witness.

The attorneys had their closing arguments where they had the opportunity to present their final arguments. The judge went ahead to explain to the jurors the laws applying to the case. the jurors after deliberation presented the court with their verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged. A sentencing hearing was scheduled by the to be held on another date.

My next visit was to Alexandria Circuit Court which is at 520 King Street Alexandria, where I visited a courtroom presided by Hon.Nolan B. Dawkins. The cases presented here were mostly traffic offenses and misdemeanor appeals and felony charges.

One of particular interest was a felony charge brought against a man accused of aggravated assault on a police officer. The case was in its preliminary stage. The prosecutor was presenting his evidence to show that the defendant was guilty of his crime and that there was indeed a probable cause for the case to be certified to the Grand Jury. In his argument, he presented footage video showing the defendant engaging the police officer at the sub-station. The defense attorney waived the preliminary hearing stating that prosecuting attorneys argument was not circumstantial enough for the case to proceed and further argued that the footage provided was inadmissible since it was not the original copy and challenged the prosecution to provide the original in order to proof its authenticity. The judge found the cause probable and certified the case to ye Grand Jury.

During my visits to the courts, I observed some problems which I rather found to be questionable was the plea-bargains. The prosecution as I found out had this tendency to offer plea bargains to defendants who are financially constraint in order for them to testify against their fellow perpetrators,which meant that some guilty people walk free despite them breaking law. The other issue of concern was police abuse. Suspects were treated as if they were already guilty and were subsequently abused.

The consistency in the procedural handling of different cases was one thing that I had expected. Suspects often admitted to crimes they did not commit with the hope of getting lenient sentences or not to sell out their fellow associates. The other thing worth noting was the fact that it is at times very difficult to determine the truth of what really occurred since the prosecution may give the solid argument that the defendant is actually guilty only for the defense to prove otherwise.

There was a slight difference in handling cases in courts as compared to that which is taught and is on the books. Trials of different cases were held simultaneously with the aim of clearing them to reduce the backlog of cases pending in the courts. The defense lawyers also got my attention on their nature to try and make the witness implicate themselves on their statements.