The Courtroom and the Courthouse Professionals

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Roles
Working together when handling a trial
Communication exchange during a trial
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The circumstances inside a courtroom are controlled and managed by different professionals. These include the law enforcers, bailiff, court reporter, prosecutor; furthermore, the defense attorney and the judge also come in handy. It is noteworthy that for the trial to run slickly all these personalities must work mutually; consequently, each of them has a function to play in the practice.

Roles

Law enforcers ensure the edict offenders are detained and charged in court. The bailiff, on the other hand, maintains law and order in the courtroom. Additionally, the court reporter records all the proceedings during the trial. It is noted that the prosecutors play the position of sorting cases for a tryout in court, in reference to precedence. In addition, they decide on the finest approach for hearing various cases. In most cases, the prosecutor formulates assignments to support district attorneys. It is noteworthy that they also do work closely with the regulation enforcers to establish the attestation against the accused.

Occasionally, the prosecutors might seek the transfer of trial venue or oppose it (Champion, Hartley & Rabe 2008). For example, in the case of Mr. Peterson v. the state, the prosecutor proved his case beyond reservation that Mr. Peterson was blameworthy of the charges, a fact that led to his conviction. Defense attorneys have the liability of devotedly acting instead of clients. They also grill prosecution witnesses to compromise their standing or accuse their authenticity. It is also apparent that they make use of all permissible resources they acquire to ensure they have conquered governments’ accusations against their client.

It is true that, in plea bargaining proceedings, they confer with prosecutors to settle on the entreaty favoring their clients. For example, in the case involving Garcia, it is evident that George Gray a public defender in Quinn County had his office understaffed and overworked. Thus, Garcia, a Mexican is charged with robbery because he was the last person seen loitering around a store before it was robbed with masked men. In this case, George gray is given the responsibility of representing him during the trial. Garcia claims he was having some wine that day the store was robbed. Additionally, he claims to have entered the store during the day to buy wine but was rejected by an employee.

This revelation makes Gray realize that it is in the best interest of Garcia to accept a guilty plea to be given a linear sentence. Failure to do so will make him get a sentence of up to 25 years in prison. This is because in a way his actions are linked to the robbery incident. It is evident that Garcia accepts this deal. Mr. Gray then communicates with the prosecutor to inform him of the developments. Thus, this portrays how the defense attorneys enter into an agreement with prosecutors so as to favor their clients. Judges have the dependability of giving verdicts that impinge on the lives of the accused. A judge has the authority to consent to the prologue of incriminating facts against the accused. Similarly, they have the authority to reject such proofs (Abadinsky, 2008).

Working together when handling a trial

It is remarkable that for a trial proceeding to begin and come to an end all the law personnel need to work in synneeds; consequently, they arrest all alleged criminals. These suspects become defendants in a court trial and are presumed innocent pending proven guilty. Hence, they are entitled to a defense attorney who is to defend the suspect against unlawful charges. The course implicating and defending criminals in court is called the adversary system. During a trial, the prosecutor’s role is to prove the defendant guilty, contrary to the defense attorney.

Moreover, the jury will ascertain whether the accused should be acquitted or convicted basbased the facts presented before them within the course of the trial. The probation officer will thus scrutinize all the facts, ideologies, and jury verdicts. In the end, he will suggest to the presiding judge the sentence, by handing over to him a pre-sentencing report. Most importantly, the judge will then have the liability of deciding a sentence (Bennett, Hess, & Orthmann, 2006).

Thus, it is evident that during a trial they work together, but each has responsibilities. For example, in the case Mr. Peterson v. the state, it is evident that the law enforcers arrested Mr. Peterson, the prosecutor filed for the case; the defense attorney represented Mr. Peterson while the jury gave out the verdict on which the judge sentenced Mr. Peterson to death. Additionally, during this trial, the bailiff maintains security and order in the courtroom. This includes frisking of people. They also advise the defense attorneys and other parties involved whenever a verdict has been reached. As a matter of fact, a court reporter takes note of the courtroom proceeding. This can be through recording audio or typing on computers. Thus, all the professionals involved performed their designated roles.

Communication exchange during a trial

Prosecutors might be involved in communication exchange when interviewing the witnesses. It is evident that prosecutors ask the witnesses questions concerning the cases in which they are presented. During this process, the witness will be answering the questions asked by the prosecutors resulting in a communication exchange. The defense attorney normally has a communication exchange when attacking the prosecution’s case.

This is to prove his client’s innocence. Thus, the defense attorney will always rise to challenge the prosecutor’s allegations on his client through objections. Judges portray communicative exchange when seeking clarification from the prosecutors or defense attorneys. This might involve the response when grating or sustaining the objections requested by either party. The bailiff might have communicative exchange during the trial when informing the defense attorneys and the prosecutor that verdict has been given.

Conclusion

It is a fact that, experts who preside over the trial in court must work in accordance with their professional ethics; furthermore, they need to work together to achieve the processes’ key objectives. The accused must ensure they lend a hand to their defense attorneys so as to succeed in the case.

References

Abadinsky, H. (2008). Law and Justice: An introduction to the American Legal System (6th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bennett, W. Hess, K. & Orthmann, C. (2006). Criminal investigation. California, CA: Cengage Learning.

Champion, D. Hartley, R. & Rabe, G. (2008). Criminal Courts: Structure, Process, and Issues, Second Edition. New Jersey, NJ: Published by Prentice Hall.

Gaines, L. & Miller, R. (2008). Criminal Justice in Action. California, CA: Cengage Learning.

Click Here To Order Now!