Observing Court/Court Visit

Observing Court/Court Visit

I had two trips and had two very different experiences to complete the visiting task at appeal. On Thursday, 14 May, between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00. I attended the Bellevue District Court. Also, on 27 May, from 2:00 to 4:00, I visited Seattle’s King County Superior Courthouse. I was in the courtroom of Judge David Steiner’s Court at Bellevue District. During the duration of my visit, the judge presided over two cases, each of which had different outcomes. The first DUI case constituted the defendant’s second offense, which led to the prosecution extending no bid to the client and asking for a trial to be scheduled. In the latter case, sobriety tests failed, and BAC was available from 13. This case was resolved in rejection as the prosecutor claimed that the initial stop was illegal due to non-compliance with oncoming traffic.

I was in the office of Judge Ronald Kessler at the King County Superior Courthouse. The case presided over at the court was Washington V. Monfort, a long-standing legal Court. In this case, the defendant Christopher Monfort is convicted of a police officer murder of an aggravated first degree. This case has been out of court since 2009, and during my visit, no decision has been made. I have found some differences between the two courtrooms in the appearance and behavior of court staff. The two judges are wearing the robes of typical judges located in the middle of the courtroom. The jurors throughout the trial were honest and unexpressive; both claims and facts seemed to be considered carefully. Police officers were large and solidly constructed in each courtroom. Throughout the preceding years, the officers remained calm, yet assertive as they directed people into and out of the court, escorting the accused to the courtroom. Ultimately, the defense lawyers in the previous two took careful notes and advice from the Attorney to their clients. They also seemed pretty faithful, waiting for their turn to the court.

There were also significant differences between them, despite the similarities. Judge Kessler was sterner than Judge Steiner of Bellevue and less vocal. In the Seattle case, the defendant’s behavior was a significant difference from the defendant in the District Court. In addition to being in a wheelchair, there was much more security than any of the other defendant; defendant Monfort was led into a courtroom in his handcuffs. His conduct seemed very far, unknown, and uninterested in the court proceedings. In contrast, the State v Monfort Public Prosecution spent much more time than any Bellevue case on the opening statement. I assume the Attorney spent most of his time discussing scientific and medical facts and explanations, because of the complexity of the case. I believe it could.

For both the Seattle and the Bellevue courtrooms, the demographic observation was very similar. The courts had mostly White people, spanning from the late 1930s to the late 1940s. In terms of demographics, a mixture between males and females existed, and between the late 20’s and late ’30s age range seemed to be younger. It was challenging to measure the socio-economic status of the lawyers and the workers because they had a dress for professional firms. Still, they seemed to have a socio-economic situation in the middle class. Their clothes had jeans and simple, colorful shirts that did not look seriously professional.

There were also some crucial observations, together with the physical observations from my court visit. That room of the court displayed evident professionalism throughout the previous years. The defendant and the prosecutor were presented calmly and directly, allowing the court to take the measures necessary to proceed with the case in good time. The hearing and the jurors were attentive and silent so that the parties could present the relevant information. The attorneys’ skill level was high. The variables and necessary precedents related to the subjects in hand were well-known. A lot of health information concerning the definition of mental health and delusion was explicitly mentioned in the preceding Seattle, so the jurors and the public could be given a more thorough explanation.

Between the Bellevue and Seattle Court, there was a difference in efficiency. With no apparent disruptions or delays, Bellevue was effective during my stay. However, there was a lack of productivity before the Seattle Court. Not just because of the high profile of the case, there was a great deal of press attendance and overcrowding in the court hearing. The courts did not start on time. In addition, courts had to funnel the audience members into an overflow courtroom where the above was shown on a live camera feed on a projection screen.

I think it was a very refreshing experience that the courtroom visit was. Nor was I aware of the wide variety of courts that occurred there prior to the court, did I know where the courthouse was — the value of a jury and the legal process I better understand. There would be a risk of unequal punishment if citizens did not have the same chance of being heard in court by their peers because there is more competition in order to decide which kind of punishment is appropriate for anyone. It was also very interesting to read my classmates’ comments concerning their encounters in court. It appears that the class witnessed mainly DUI but with a range of seriousness. It was interesting to see how things progressed from the time she went, and from the time I went to the same classmates that were the same as myself, but in the previous stages. I was also pleased that the session I attended was of a higher standard of professionalism. Lastly, I felt my classmates comment that the officer playing a game over his mobile during an earlier one was just so disgusting.

In addition, my trial visit strengthened my understanding of the law and topics in the classroom. I observed the process and was able to interact with various court personnel. At the Seattle Court, I learned that all the multiple jurisdictions staff courts and that there are so many different events at once. In the State Monfort courtroom, I watched the potential setting of a precedent for future evaluations on mental health, while also witnessing the willingness of stare to take into account precedents already established during criminal cases of mental health.

I see where the procedure can be more productive. Our legal system is fascinating. The Bellevue District Court seemed to deal mainly with DUI cases, which involve multiple offenders, which result in either license dismissals or license suspensions. It seems to be more a problem in public health than criminal drinking and driving. If our legal system offers more treatment and training solutions, the judiciary can be free to deal with violent crime cases and decrease the recurrence of DUI offenses.