Court Visit: People vs. Mouhamed Thiam

Court Visit: People vs. Mouhamed Thiam

Description of the court room

The New York Court of a peal has some is fitted with elegant wooden furniture. The design of the court creates an impression many would associated with the legal system. The curved bench is strategically designed to host seven judges. The idea is that in the case of any ruling there can never be a tie, and the majority will always take. The respondent and the appellant are provided with a podium where they take turns to present their cases and responds to questions from the judges. In the case of this court hearing, it was an oral argument to deliberate on a matter and the jury were not present. Also only the attorneys of the responded and appellant were present during the hearing. However, there was no decision made at this hearing as the judges were still to weigh the facts in the arguments presented to them.

Case facts

In this hearing Katherine Kulkarni of Manhattan District Attorney had represented the people of New York against Mouhamed Thiam who was represented by Will A. Page of the Legal Aid Society. The subject matter of this hearing was that Kulkarni was appealing against a ruling the cleared Mr. Thiam of his misdemeanors. According Kulkarni the defendant was charged in a case where there was at least a single evidence of demeanor. The court was within jurisdiction to charge the respondent with seventh degree crime of possessing a controlled substance even on in absence of sufficient pled. The argument revolved on whether the jurisdiction was on personal, trial, or subject matter level. The two attorneys debated on the difference circumstances in which the court had the jurisdiction to charge the accused with ownership of banned substance.

People present

During the hearing, the bench was led by Chief Judge Janet Difiore. Other judges were Associate Judge Jenny Riviera, Associate Judge Leslie E. Stein, Associate Judge Eugene M. Fahey, Associate Judge Michael J. Garcia, Associate Judge Rowan D. Wilson, and Associate Judge Paul Feinman. The appellant was represented by Katherine Kulkarni, while the respondent was represented by Will A. Page. Other court staffs and clerks were also available during the oral argument.

Issues presented

The oral argument revolved around accusatory instruments required in ruling on possession of controlled substance. According to the appellant, the court had the jurisdiction to convict the accused. The debate rolled to types of jurisdictions such as persona, court and subject matter. Accusatory instruments are essential as they determine the validity of an entire hearing. The interpretation of these jurisdiction is essential in ensuring justice is served.

Personal jurisdiction provides the court of appeal with authority to rule on a case based on the person sued in a trial. To determine whether a court has personal jurisdiction on a case, the American constitution demands that the accused has to attain a minimum interaction with the court handling the case. This provision gives the respondent legal right to object the suit by explaining the court has no personal jurisdiction to put the defendant on trial. However, it is up to the sued to claim lack of personal jurisdiction or else the court will waive that right. The normal procedure for a court to have personal jurisdiction requires the plaintiff to serve the defendant with court sit and the former shall voluntarily attend court session.

The other case is the court jurisdiction. The original court jurisdiction occurs where testimony and evidence was initially presented, accepted, and considered. Every level of the judiciary has a special role in any hearing. For instance, the trial court is charged making laws and obtaining facts, and whenever the respondent is not satisfied he/she can appeal to a court with more power. A trial court is only tasked with listening to cases that are not already in other court’s jurisdiction. Based on the power vested upon them, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited depending on amount in controversy, subject matter, administrative matters and statutory grants.

The jurisdiction of a case can also be referred on a subject matter, which determines the court’s authority to adjudicate a specific issue in order to provide the required remedy.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential for the court to make a valid claim and enforce judgment. The judgement can be invalid if the jurisdiction lacks litigation as determined by various procedural mechanisms. Every court is charged with power to listen to different types of case. This situation brings the difference between personal and subjected-matter jurisdiction. While the former is waivable, the court has no authority to wave the latter. However, either party in the case can question and dismiss the jurisdiction of a court at any stage and seek for alternative hearing.

Since subject-matter jurisdictions has limitation because it is the most pronounced distinguishing matter among courts. By legal standards a court can only claim to have subject-matter jurisdiction on the cases it is authorized to hear by the constitution.

Because of the complexity of cases handled by federal courts, they have limited subject-matter jurisdiction while the state court have general jurisdiction. Not unless a case is exclusive under federal court, the state courts can handle any case where it is based on state or federal laws. Nonetheless, there are few state courts such as juvenile, traffic and probate courts that have limited jurisdiction.

Court decision

Though the court did not make a decision on the case at this meeting, the discussion on the issue suggest probable conclusion. First, being a state appeal court, the judges had general jurisdiction to deliberate on subject matter. However, the main concern was on personal jurisdiction. The facts on the cases required a proof that Mr. Thiam was indeed possessed a controlled substance. The failure to provide evidence is likely to make the court rule in the favor of Mr. Thiam. Without a drug test, it is impossible to conclude that the pills were the banned substance. The defendant was also able to explain his case based on current facts without entangling it with the natural Keizer.

Experience from the visit

The court visit was a deliberating moment that portrayed many factors that were theoretical. First, presenting a case needs a detain understanding of the matter including related issues. During the oral argument, other issues such as high tower and Keizer a rose and the attorney had to explain how they relate to the matter. Second, an attorney needs to be careful on the request and presentation to ensure that they do not raise an issue that will cause more trouble. The judges asked both attorneys to respond on what they think would be happen if they ruled in the favor of their adversaries. Finally, legal issues are interrelated. Whether a counsel is in support of a matter or not, they should be able to relate everything to make a sober and informed argument.