You will need to visit a courthouse and watch a proceeding sometime this semester. When you have completed your visit, please post your remarks there. Please let us know in your post where you went, what you saw and experienced, and how long you visited. Please be sure to discuss what aspects of psychology you saw in action during your visit.
Tips:
-Courthouses are public places. You are allowed to be there.
-Many courthouses require you to go through a metal detector; leave pocket knives, etc, at home.
-If you are not sure where to go or what to do, you can always approach the jury information window; you can tell these people that you are student and need to see a court proceeding. They will tell you which court rooms have stuff going on, and will often give you their opinion about what might be interesting to see.
-Sit in the back of the courtroom, in the gallery area; turn OFF your cell phone.
-You do not need to stay for the whole proceeding; it is acceptable to quietly enter and leave proceedings.
-Don't be surprised if the judge acknowledges you; they sometimes do and are usually quite happy to have students in their courtroom.
I watched my first criminal trial this past summer in the Waterloo courthouse. At the time I was working for a law firm downtown Waterloo. An attorney at the law firm, who specialized in criminal law, offered me the opportunity to sit in on one of his cases. I was excited to have the chance to watch a criminal trial and it was very helpful having someone there to explain each step of the process.
The particular trial I sat in on lasted two days. I was there for the whole time the first day, which I believe lasted 3 hours. This was a domestic abuse case, where a daughter was charging her mother for physically assaulting her. When I heard this was a criminal trial I wasn’t sure what to expect. Usually when I think of domestic abuse I think of a husband beating his wife. In this particular instance that wasn’t the case.
The first process of the trial was choosing a jury. When I went into the courtroom I didn’t even have a place to sit. There were potential jurors filling up all of the seats. I definitely was not expecting to be able to sit in on this process but I’m glad I did have this opportunity. The process of choosing jurors has a lot of psychological techniques to it. The job of the attorney is to predict how a juror will respond to the facts of the case and how they will view their client. In order to understand the jurors the attorneys need to know what questions to ask. In this case the attorney would want to ask whether or not the juror had children, or if they knew anybody who had suffered from domestic abuse etc. If a juror has children you might assume that they would sympathize with the mother who is being charged. On the other hand, if the juror had a friend who was abused by their spouse that juror may be more sympathetic towards the prosecutor’s case. This process of jury selection involves a lot of manipulating and deducting. In some of the bigger cases, criminal lawyers will hire a jury consultant. Many times a jury consultant has a background in psychology. It is important for them to understand people’s reactions and how certain experiences can influence how events are perceived.
I was pleasantly surprised when the attorney I knew, Mr. Walton, asked me to join him and his client in a private room. Here he explained to me how he makes his decisions on what jurors to keep and which ones to veto. Essentially, after both sides have deliberated, a piece of paper will be passed back and forth between the attorneys. Each attorney is able to pick a juror and each attorney is given a certain amount of vetoes where they can strike down one of the other attorney’s choices. Overall, it was a very interesting process.
Once the jury was selected they got right on with the trial. I didn’t see a lot of the actual trial but I saw enough to get a good idea on the process. The whole time I was sitting in on the case I kept thinking of Law & Order. The real thing was obviously not the same and definitely not as dramatic. The think I found the most interesting and really paid attention to was the defense. I know I’m not the only one that has a hard time imagining how to defend somebody who is most likely guilty. I’m glad I knew the defense attorney because that way I knew he was a nice guy. I was always waiting for him to argue his point and put a twist on the issue so that the facts of the case turned in his favor. Something I realized is that defense attorney’s really needed to be creative and open-minded. Some of the stuff he came up with for his defense argument was brilliant. Watching this case was probably the first time I understood the importance of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I also understood the role of the defense attorney and his duty to his client.
After watching this trial, I think that the defense attorney uses the most psychology out of anybody in the courtroom. As we have discussed in class, the law tells you what people can and cannot do. Psychology tells us how people behave and why. The prosecutor’s defense relies more on emphasizing the law and showing that the defendant broke the law. On the other hand, the defense attorney does not want to emphasize this point. Instead, he wants to show the jury alternate explanations for his client’s actions. For example, what had the daughter done in the now and in the past to set the mother off, or maybe the facts of the case show that the mother was acting in self-defense? If the defense attorney could explain that the daughter had severe behavioral problems and the mother had tried everything she could to deal with them, the jurors might empathize with the mother. That would be an example of using psychology. The prosecuting attorney could also use this technique, but I don’t think they rely on it as much as the defense. Overall this was a great experience, and I hope I have the chance to watch more criminal trials in the future.
I went to the Black Hawk County Courthouse on 3/22/12. I got there at 9am and entered an all day trial room about child custody. I felt really awkward at first because the judge made all the witnesses leave so that just left me sitting there and they just kept giving me odd looks. Once it got going I was able to find out that the mother of the children brought the father of the children to court to re-discuss the custody issues. She wanted to change the amount of time he had with his children from 6 weeks in the summer to 4 weeks, he would get seven days at Christmas, and he couldn’t take them out of state. The children were not present at the trial. The children were to girl one 11 and one 13. The 13 year old has cerebral palsy, while the other girl has ADHD. This led to another reason for being at court because he wasn’t helping with health insurance or paying her the money he was supposed to.
The first major problem that I saw was that the father was going to try to represent himself. For the two hours I was there he did a very poor job. He was very upset with why his children didn’t want to visit him, and when the mom was on the stands he could barely contain himself. I wouldn’t be surprised if he got kicked out after I left because he had multiple warnings from the judge. The thing that he kept getting in trouble for was the fact that he kept interrupting and putting his voice in where he should have been silent. It was honestly hard to watch because I just wanted to say “Stop being stupid, and stay quite.”
In this trial they had a counselor at the school talk, a cop, and I left while the mother was on the stand. This case in general had a lot of psychological factors. The first thing I noticed when I walked in was that the prosecuting attorney was extremely fidgety and extremely quite when he talked to the judge. It made me feel like he had to case. Everyone was also dressed extremely nicely, even the witnesses looked good. This is an example of behavioral psychology because they wanted they wanted to look like they were put together. Even the fact that the prosecutor was fidgety explained a lot about him behavior wise. He was also very sweaty. I only observed that because he had a tissue or napkin that he kept wiping his hands on. Overall he didn’t seem comfortable with what he was doing. The witnesses that the defendant (father) called looked like they didn’t want to be there and they avoided questions that would hurt the dad even though he was the one asking the questions. This was just irritating because he would literally ask questions that would make him look terrible.
Shortly after starting the trail the judge called for a recess because the father didn’t share some of the information with the prosecutor and his ex-wife. I just feel like the dad killed himself by not showing up with an attorney and by being so unorganized when it came to his evidence. He also was unaware at how a courtroom worked. The judge and prosecutor had to talk him through a lot of the processes, which I could tell was really irritating both of them.
I did feel badly for the dad because he was rarely allowed access to his children, but he also lived in Colorado and that caused a lot of their disputes because he wanted to take them to Colorado, but they didn’t want to because it would take them away from their home and friends. He kept asking the mother “What did I do wrong? What did I do to make them hate me so much?” I was just thinking that she doesn’t have that answer and that he would have to ask him children that question not her.
Overall the main psychology that was used was behavioral and social psychology. Behavioral was seen in the way that everyone was dressed and in how they were personally acting. Social psychology was seen throughout the whole things because it is a social situation and the way that everyone was communicating to each other showed a lot of psychology. I wish I could have stayed to see what the end results would have been because I was curious as to if the father basically signed his own death certificate.
This morning a few classmates and I carpooled over to Blackhawk County Courthouse in Waterloo. To say the least, it was a very interesting experience. Unfortunately, there were no felony jury trials taking place today. Nonetheless, the experience proved to be quite interesting and we learned a lot about the criminal justice system. Upon entering the courthouse, we went through a metal detector. At first we had trouble finding a courtroom to watch a proceeding, but after we figured out the schedule we ended up watching a few different cases. The first case that we watched was a sentencing in Courtroom 309. In this particular case, the defendant was a very young looking man/boy who was being charged with burglary and possession of marijuana. The judge said that he could be sentenced to five years in prison, but luckily for the man/boy, he was left off with 2-5 years of probation. The judge noted that he had previous charges with alcohol and it seemed to be a continuing problem that needed to be addressed. The saddest part of this sentencing was that the only other people watching were the man/boy’s grandparents. It was a bit emotional to watch them see their grandson being sentenced. We only caught the tail end of this sentencing, so we were only in courtroom 309 for about 10 minutes.
The next courtroom that we went into was probably the most interesting for the morning. After we walked in the judge greeted us and asked us who we were there to watch. We told him that we were just there for class and he was very interested in the fact that we were taking a “Psychology and Law” class. He was a genuinely nice man who was very open to questions between the sentencing. In these particular cases, there were two prosecutors present. The first man (who showed up late) was being sentenced for his third offense of possession of marijuana. Due to some issue that I did not catch, his sentencing was moved to a later date. The next sentencing was probably the most shocking of the day. A very dirty, greasy looking girl (who looked about the age of 18) walked in with her attorney. They sat down and she was sentenced to probation for the possession of methamphetamine. She had no prior criminal history (besides the violation of a few non-contact orders) so she was given only probation. After her and her attorney left the room, the judge continued to talk to us. The court reporter even mentioned that she knew Otto MacLin, and the prosecutor said that Otto always testifies for the defense. The funniest part of this room was that there was a defense attorney that insisted on showing everyone in the room a picture of her nephew becoming an Eagle Scout, even though it seemed that no one cared. She even said “Your honor, before we start I’d like to bring something to your attention.” She then walked up to the judge and showed him the picture; he did not seem sincerely interested.
The final courtroom was probably the most boring. First off, we were supposed to watch the plea at 10:30, but the defense attorney was late. In this case, it was a lady who was on probation and got caught with pain killers. This was pretty interesting and was related to psychology in a sense that the judge asked the lady if she was on any medication. She was on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication. The only other person watching this trial was the lady’s husband, and she kept whispering to him, “I love you.” It was pretty sad to watch. The judge continued to ask her if she understood what she was doing by pleading guilty. He asked questions such as, “Are you satisfied with the services that you received from your attorney?” “Do you need any more time to talk with your attorney?” “You understand if you plead guilty that there will be no trial?”
The thing that made me a bit upset is that we were supposed to watch a competency hearing, which would have related to this class in the best way possible, but it was rescheduled. I found this experience to be very interesting and entertaining. I could literally spend a whole day at the courthouse watching trials. One thing that I thought was pretty interesting was the way in which many of the defendants presented themselves. If I were about to be sentenced, I would probably be wearing a full suit. Many of these people looked as if they had just gotten out of bed. Their hair was greasy, and they just did not present themselves in a way in which I think would be appropriate. I also thought it was interesting that the younger the attorney was, the more interested in their job that they seemed. For example, one prosecuting attorney just looked annoyed that she had to be there. We also approached her in a hallway to ask her a few questions and she didn’t seem extremely excited to answer. All of the judges on the other were very nice and seemed to love what they do.
We spent a total of about two hours at the courthouse and we saw a few different cases. Now, how did psychology fit into this all? Well, I think psychology fit into every case in its own special way. Criminal Law in general relates to psychology because human behavior is the reason that people are sitting in a criminal courthouse in the first place. Psychology is the study of HUMAN BEHAVIOR, so this is a very clear connection. Perception is a part of psychology, and I believe that if these defendants would have presented themselves in a better way, the judge would have perceived them as a different type of person. This is exactly why if I were in that situation, I would be wearing nicer clothes, I would show up on time, and I would be extremely respectful. Finally, the fact that the lady was taking antidepressants and also anti-anxiety medicine also has a clear connection to psychology. Depression and anxiety are a part of Abnormal Psychology. The judge wanted to make sure that she was not making the decision to plead guilty because of some effect the drugs had on her. Overall, this was a great experience and I believe it will help me to perform my job during our in-class trial.
I took a different approach with my courthouse visit. I visited the Blackhawk County Court House on Friday, March 23rd with a friend. We arrived at about 3:00.The first thing that we had to do was to go through the metal detector. I did not have any problems, but my friends belt made it go off and she had to be "wanded." I think that having to go through the metal detector itself could be a very intimidating experience, especially if a person was going to court for their own case. The woman at the desk told us that we could view a session called "Order Hour" that began at 3:30. We sat in the back of the court room. In this session, there was not really a formal proceeding, but more of an informal time with the judge. There were a variety of people present for a variety of reasons. One lady came in to get her no contact order modified. She had attended joint counseling with her spouse. The judge was given a letter from the counselor, and granted her request to get the order modified. Another lady came in to get her no contact order dropped. The judge said that there was no way that he could do that. He told her that they could go to joint counseling, and after that he would be willing to modify the order. She was not pleased with this answer, and said that she had spoken with the district attorney who okayed her request. The judge agreed that he would drop the no contact order after speaking with the district attorney himself. A man came in wanting to get an extension on the time in which he was required to take courses for a DUI he had received. HE was granted his request for an additional 30 days. There were a few more people present, but the judge could not help them, as they needed to see someone else for their requests. Once everyone had left, the judge asked us if we were there for court or for school. We said "school" he asked us what class we were there for. Afterwards was the most interesting part of my courthouse visit. Two lawyers had been in the room for the entire order hour session. One of them got kinda smart with the judge so he ordered the lawyer to explain to us what he was doing. The lawyer told us that he had a variety of files with him that the judge was looking at. He told us that there was a day limit on how long the lawyers were allowed to press charges on a person. He told us that the judge had to look over the cases to decide that the charges were acceptable and appropriate. HE also told us that the stack he had was roughly 3-4 days worth of cases. The stack included about 50 files! Once his files were looked at, he left the room.
The remaining lawyer came over and talked to us. He told us that he generally handled DUI cases. He explained to us the penalty for receiving a DUI (which is incredible, I cannot imagine ever getting one!). He told us that he received an average of 3 DUI cases per day in Blackhawk county. He also said that if another person is seriously hurt because of someone's drunk driving, they are almost, if not always sent to prison. He also told us about some of his most interesting cases. In one case, a woman had run someone over, when she was intoxicated, breaking some bones in his back. He also gave us some personal information about being a lawyer. He told us that the average "burn out" rate for a lawyer is 5 years. He is in his 6th year, and he can understand why that is the case. He said that it is really important to have a strong support system (he said he uses church) because in this particular field he generally only sees people at the worst times in their lives. It was really an eye opener for me to see the personal side of a lawyer. I also was impressed by the fact that he told us how difficult the job is. I never thought about the continuous negativity that lawyers deal with.
Finally, before we left we spoke with the judge. We asked him why he decided the way he did in terms of the no contact orders. HE told us that it was because he follows a process. First, he wants the couple to seek counseling or services at Seeds of Hope. He refers them to Seeds of Hope because often people do not know all of the options that are available to them. He said that counseling was a way to ensure that the individuals actually care about each other and want the order dropped. If they care enough they will go to counseling. He said that he then takes advice from the counselors on ways to modify the order. He said that they are the professionals in that area, and they can tell what recommendations should be made for a particular couple. He also told us that he is not aware of a case in which he lifted a no contact order and the situation within the couple got worse or more violent.
We were at the court house for about an hour. I saw many aspects of psychology while I was there. The most common psychology that I saw being portrayed was social psychology. People were attempting to be very persuasive in their arguments to the judge as to why they wanted their request granted and why the judge should do so. There was one lady who entered and left the court room three different times. Towards the end she turned towards us and asked us if he was "bad." We just kinda shrugged and shook our heads and she said that she would just do it another time. This showed a lot of psychology for me. She basically had decided that he judge would be less likely to vote in her favor if he had made decisions in a particular way in other cases. I think this offered some aspects of social psychology, as well as cognitive psychology. I also saw behavioral psychology. Many people were dressed very nice, and attempted to use appropriate, non-offensive language with the judge. They also sat up straight, and only spoke when they were asked to do so. It was obvious that for some people this was a struggle, especially when the judge did not act the way that they wanted him to. It was as though they were attempting to have the judge see them in a favorable light, even if it was obviously uncomfortable for them. There was also psychology present in the way the judge told us he handles domestic cases. By seeing if a couple is willing to go to counseling, he can tell how much they care and to what extent they were willing to work to make their relationship successful.
I really enjoyed this experience. I learned so much from my conversation with different professionals. It really made me realize the difficulties that are faced in the positions.
I went and watched a court proceeding earlier today. I first called the blawkhawk county courthouse to make sure there was a trial going on today. They told me to go to the blawkhawk county jail because they didn't have much going on today. I got to the jail just after one. I was disappointed because the lady on the phone told me the first hearing would be at 1:30, but after we sat there for about 20 minutes we found out the hearing had been continued. They said this meant someone couldn't make the original time scheduled so they had to move it to a later day. We decided to sit around and wait for the next hearing to be brought in.
The first hearing was for a bond reduction. The defendent, Sophia, was trying to get her bonds lowered and be able to pay only 10 percent of it be posted right away. Sophia had many charges against her. She had five or six charges that all had over $1,000 bond each, and some of them were as high as $10,000. Some of the charges she was facing included: stalking, a couple marijuana possessions, violating a no contact order, public intoxication, harrassment, driving while barred on multiple occassions, and she had failed to appear at several of her previous hearings. This all played against her. The prosecutor for the state no doubt had a better arguement than the defense. She told the judge that the defendent needed to learn her lesson because she obviously did not care about her actions. Sophia had commited several of these crimes within just a few months of each other. This showed the judge that she honestly didn't care. When the defense tried presenting their case, I felt like they didn't even have a chance. The defense attorney told the judge that her client had a safe place to stay if she were to get out with either her sister or her best friend. She claimed these people cared enough about her to keep her out of trouble, and make sure she didn't drive anywhere. Also she had a job lined up so she would have something to occupy her time to keep her off of the street. Even with this said, the judge didn't lower her bonds. He told her she needs to be able to resolve her problems and to learn her lesson. He couldn't help her because she had commited way to many misdemeanors in too little time. This was the end of the trial and Sophia was escorted back to the jail.
The second hearing we watched wasn't as interesting. It was for a young man who wanted the state to stop taking the money out of his bank account to pay for all of his fines. For his present crime that he is currently in jail for he had built up $587 that he owed the state. He was mad that when his family put $100 into his account that the state immediately took this money and only left him with $25. The state said they can do this because until he pays them all of their money they can claim any money in his account as long as he has more than $25 in there. The defendent didn't understand this, and I'm guesing because he didn't have an attorney. The judge agreed with the state, and suggested to the defendent to set up a payment plan when he actually gets out of jail and gets a job.
After being at the blawkcounty jail for an hour and a half I saw many forms of psychology present. Behavioral psychology was present when the attorneys were dressed nicely to attend court. I also saw behavioral psychology that when the judge entered the second hearing the yound man stood for him and didn't sit until the judge had sat. I found this interesting because the defendent was the only one who did this. Also the young man asked to speak before he said anything, I'm assuming he did this because he didn't have an attorney. Social psychology was also used. Before the first trial the defense attorney came out the room where people could watch what was going on and spoke with the defendent's friends and family. She was trying to make them feel as comfortable as possible with the given circumstances. The last big thing I noticed with psychology was that the defense attorney in the first hearing trying to use cognitive psychology with the judge. I say this because she was trying to make it seem that her client would absolutely follow the rules and appear at all of her court dates and follow her parole because of what she could face if she didn't follow these things. She was trying to persuade the judge that the consequences her client would face would keep her in line, but the judge absolutely did not buy this.
I went and watched a court proceeding earlier today. I first called the blawkhawk county courthouse to make sure there was a trial going on today. They told me to go to the blawkhawk county jail because they didn't have much going on today. I got to the jail just after one. I was disappointed because the lady on the phone told me the first hearing would be at 1:30, but after we sat there for about 20 minutes we found out the hearing had been continued. They said this meant someone couldn't make the original time scheduled so they had to move it to a later day. We decided to sit around and wait for the next hearing to be brought in.
The first hearing was for a bond reduction. The defendent, Sophia, was trying to get her bonds lowered and be able to pay only 10 percent of it be posted right away. Sophia had many charges against her. She had five or six charges that all had over $1,000 bond each, and some of them were as high as $10,000. Some of the charges she was facing included: stalking, a couple marijuana possessions, violating a no contact order, public intoxication, harrassment, driving while barred on multiple occassions, and she had failed to appear at several of her previous hearings. This all played against her. The prosecutor for the state no doubt had a better arguement than the defense. She told the judge that the defendent needed to learn her lesson because she obviously did not care about her actions. Sophia had commited several of these crimes within just a few months of each other. This showed the judge that she honestly didn't care. When the defense tried presenting their case, I felt like they didn't even have a chance. The defense attorney told the judge that her client had a safe place to stay if she were to get out with either her sister or her best friend. She claimed these people cared enough about her to keep her out of trouble, and make sure she didn't drive anywhere. Also she had a job lined up so she would have something to occupy her time to keep her off of the street. Even with this said, the judge didn't lower her bonds. He told her she needs to be able to resolve her problems and to learn her lesson. He couldn't help her because she had commited way to many misdemeanors in too little time. This was the end of the trial and Sophia was escorted back to the jail.
The second hearing we watched wasn't as interesting. It was for a young man who wanted the state to stop taking the money out of his bank account to pay for all of his fines. For his present crime that he is currently in jail for he had built up $587 that he owed the state. He was mad that when his family put $100 into his account that the state immediately took this money and only left him with $25. The state said they can do this because until he pays them all of their money they can claim any money in his account as long as he has more than $25 in there. The defendent didn't understand this, and I'm guesing because he didn't have an attorney. The judge agreed with the state, and suggested to the defendent to set up a payment plan when he actually gets out of jail and gets a job.
After being at the blawkcounty jail for an hour and a half I saw many forms of psychology present. Behavioral psychology was present when the attorneys were dressed nicely to attend court. I also saw behavioral psychology that when the judge entered the second hearing the yound man stood for him and didn't sit until the judge had sat. I found this interesting because the defendent was the only one who did this. Also the young man asked to speak before he said anything, I'm assuming he did this because he didn't have an attorney. Social psychology was also used. Before the first trial the defense attorney came out the room where people could watch what was going on and spoke with the defendent's friends and family. She was trying to make them feel as comfortable as possible with the given circumstances. The last big thing I noticed with psychology was that the defense attorney in the first hearing trying to use cognitive psychology with the judge. I say this because she was trying to make it seem that her client would absolutely follow the rules and appear at all of her court dates and follow her parole because of what she could face if she didn't follow these things. She was trying to persuade the judge that the consequences her client would face would keep her in line, but the judge absolutely did not buy this.
During spring break I got home in time to check out a court proceeding around my area. I decided to go visit the court house in downtown Des Moines. Des Moines is bustling community that is progressing in both categories of happiness of living and economic development. With these two categories growing, so does the category of crime. I thought visiting this courthouse would give me a large variety of courtroom venues to choose from. This courthouse handles not only the crimes within the immediate city district but also the numerous communities surrounding Des Moines. I was pretty excited to get to the courthouse and see how the legal system works first hand.
I have to admit that I was pretty nervous initially walking up the long set of stairs leading into the courthouse. I did not know exactly what I was going to do inside the building. I mean I knew I was there to observe trial procedure, but I wasn't exactly sure on how to just enter any old trial hearing without looking like a complete fool. Keeping the tips in mind, I started to gain some confidence as I moved through the metal detector. I was not sure on what to go see first, so I simply immersed myself into the first large group of people I saw. Little did I know this was leading my right into the oh so fascinating world of traffic court (sarcasm).
After realizing what section of the courthouse I had found myself in, I decided to stay for a little while before switching trial rooms. Traffic cases are somewhat interesting because of the strange mix of people that come to dispute their violations. I stayed for two challenges. In the first one a gentlemen was disputing a red light violation. The man claimed that he had come to a complete stop before turning right on red. He made a pretty case for himself, and was lucky enought to be relieved of the traffic charges. The second dispute involved a women who was disputing a speeding ticket she had recieved after dropping her child off from school. Unfortunately for this woman the accussing officer in her case had actually shown up to face the challenge. Not surprisingly, the woman did win her plea. After these two challenges I had seen enough of the traffic court, so I decided to move to another trial room.
While I was walking through the hallways of the courthouse looking for a new hearing, I ran into a family friend who actually serves as a judge for the Des Moines courthouse. After explaining to her what I was doing, she was generous enough to get me into a preliminary hearing involving a murder trial one of her colleagues was hearing. I was pretty ecstatic to have access to such a high priority case. Inside the courtroom the only parties present were the judge, the defendant and his attorney, the prosecution, and the defendant's family. The defendant, a middle-aged overweight african american man, was being charged with the rape and murder of a thirty year old latino woman. Although the hearing was only being held to hear the defendant's plea, it soon became a soapbox for the defendant to ask for new legal representation.
Once the judge had started the proceeding she asked whether the defendant had anything to say. The defendant certainly did, and he was not going to pass up this chance to bombard his attorney. The defendant made rampant claims against the effort and ability of his attorney. He believed that his attorney showed no interest in his case, and was simply going about the basics in seeking an acquittal. After many more degrading claims, he asked the judge and court to be assigned a new attorney. The judge and prosecution both had things to say before granting him this wish. The prosecution personally vouched for the work of the defense attorney because she had worked with/against him on many previous trials. The judge emphasized the fact that the defendant really should have voiced these concerns way earlier in the trial. Mostly she just believed that the defendant was attempting delay the trial even further that it had been. After a period of argument the judge asked the family, prosecution, and me to leave the courtroom.
I decided I had seen enough after the long drawn out scene inside the courtroom. My afternoon at the courtroom certainly provided me with some interesting moments. Throughout my time there, I could not help but notice the psychological themes present. There was a lot of social psychology present in particular. The formal atmosphere of the courtroom in general illustrates the stringent expectations present from the minute you walk inside. It is almost as if the legal system is expressing the point that it must be taken seriously in all aspects. During the traffic challenges the positions of credibility determined the outcome tremendously. For example, the challenge in which the police officer did show up displayed the fact that nearly everyone inside the courtroom invested more trust in the testimony of the officer compared to the challenger. The trial that I spent the majority of my time in displayed psychology in several ways. First of all, the defendant's allegations against his attorney, and his attorney's stone silence indicated the tense relationship between the two that must have been present since the defendant had been charged. Additionally, the judge and prosecution's reaction illustrated how the benefit of the doubt in such situations is always given to legal representatives. Finally, the defendant's nervous behavior showed how desperate he was. He consistently trembled and looked around the courtroom, a couple of times right at me. It was pretty obvious that this man was struggling to find a way to further delay his trial.
Visiting the courthouse was both informative and exciting. As a student who intends on entering the legal profession, I really enjoyed witnessing the everyday processes of individuals in the legal profession including judges, attorneys, clerks, and even the security guards. The legal system in this country is probably run so fluidly because of the daily dedication demonstrated by these individuals. Spending time at the courthouse that afternoon only enhanced my career aspirations.
I decided to go and watch a trial proceeding over spring break back near my hometown. I went down to the Clinton County courthouse. There wasn't much excitement going on the day I went, but there were a few misdemeanor charges and traffic violations. I was kind of nervous to go and watch a court proceeding because I didn't exactly know what to expect and who I was going to see. There was not a jury at this trial because it was so small and there were so many people to go through. There was however a judge and other people to lead you through your process. The judge called out the names and went through them one by one then the defendants gave him their plea of either guilty or not guilty.
The first case was a man who had received a speeding ticket in the mail and was refusing to pay it because there were no signs that let him know there were traffic cameras. He must have not done his research very well because there were indeed signs that showed drivers of these cameras so he lost his case. The next case was a man who was trying to fight a speeding ticket he had received, he listed off a number of reasons and tried to say he wasn't speeding, but the officer who had given him the ticket was actually in the courtroom and the defendant lost his case as well. The next few cases were teenagers trying to fight their minor in possession of alcohol tickets, but the judge wasn't having any of that and decided to give them their fines anyway. They left not too happy with the outcome. After watching a few more I decided to leave because the rest of the people in there were starting to file out as well.
After leaving the courtroom I realized there are a lot of psychological aspects of the legal system. While watching the different cases I realized there is a lot of social psychology in each one because everyone is arguing for what they think is right. And the judge has to sit there and listen to their argument to determine whether they are guilty or not guilty of their actions. Another big part in these cases was cognitive psychology because all of these people going in to argue their cases have to have some idea in their minds to argue and why they think it is wrong to convict them of a crime. I found this very interesting because I've never really thought that cognitive psychology played a role in these cases but it definitely does.
I really enjoyed going to the courthouse and watching different people try to argue their cases. I found it interesting because there was such a variety of people in there trying to do what they thought was right. I think a career in law is definitely interesting and there is probably never a dull moment.
Two weeks ago when I was home on the weekend I went to the Johnson County courthouse in Iowa City. I spent only about an hour there because I had other obligations to take care of while in Iowa City. It was a totally different experience to be honest as it seemed as if it was a totally different world within those walls than the outside world. There were many court employees running around in the court house transporting documents and so forth. When I first got in I noticed I didn’t have to go through a metal detector as I thought I would have to do. It seems a little unsafe not having one being the type of environment it is. There are criminals and law breakers in these buildings and they don’t have a metal detector. This was probably the most shocking thing to me. Once I was in there though I tried to find my way around the courthouse and searching for a courtroom and I was stopped a couple times. I was asked what I was doing and said I was here for a class and needed to see a court proceeding. They pointed me to a couple of different courtrooms that I could go into. After about 10 minutes of walking around searching for a room I went into one that was just getting started.
It was a little awkward walking into the courtroom because it was real quiet and only the judge was speaking. Also the door squeaked pretty loud and people began to look at me. But other than that embarrassing moment things went pretty smoothly. After about 10 minutes of sitting in there I realized I wasn’t in the same room with any hardcore criminals. In fact, this proceeding was for misdemeanors and there are several violators in the room. I noticed that a majority of the violators have been cited for minor things such as possession of alcohol under the legal age, possession of small amounts of marijuana and speeding and moving violations. These people I learned from talking with one of the persons in violation’s mother were never arrested. Rather they have only been cited and given tickets. So with this being said there were no prosecutors or defense attorneys in attendance. The judge was just talking to them as a group about the types of violations they committed and told them if they wanted to try to fight the citation that would have to get an attorney and set up date for a trial. She was them the option of pleading guilty or not guilty of their citation. Towards the end after she discussed all the possibilities they could take she told them to form two lines. The lines were divided on whether you saw yourself guilty or not. Those who chose guilty went to one line and those chose not guilty went in the other. I was interested in the people who said they were guilty and began to pay attention to what they had to do. Each of these people met with a court representative to go over their violation and that person made sure they have the correct amount of money that they were fined for. They were able to ask any questions and after they met with this person the just went the clerk’s office in the courthouse where they paid their fine. It was interesting how smooth and harmless this process was. Everyone seemed very organized and flowed very well. The whole process took about an hour when it was all said and done.
After my courthouse visit I realized there is psychology plays an important role in the judicial system. On this specific day the only dimension of psychology that I really noticed was social psychology. This is was the whole court proceeding seemed to be about. The judge did a great majority of the talking and advised them on what to do. Also there was some social psychology within the discussions between the violators and court representative. They would be talking back and forth on the law. Some of the violators seemed pretty upset and try to explain themselves but yet these people were the one who went into the not guilty line.
Over Spring Break, I decided to get my courthouse visit out of the way. I live in Greene County, Iowa with a population of about 6-7,000, so it is fairly small. I was hesitant to do my visit here because I knew not much would be going on in such a small town, but I didn’t know if I could make time to go to Waterloo when I got back. I went on March 15, 2012. I got to the courthouse around 1 o’clock in the afternoon and wasn’t sure where to go. Luckily, I knew someone who worked in one of the offices and she pointed me in the right direction. She also told me some interesting information about the courthouse itself. The actually courtroom that I would be visiting is in the same exact condition as when they first built the courthouse. They have not made any renovations at all, as well as some other rooms in the courthouse. I thought that was very unique and interesting, from what I understand, not many courthouses have that.
I was expecting to go through a metal detector because of the instructions for the blog, but was not surprised when I learned we did not have one. Entering the room, I could definitely tell that it was very old, and it smelled very bad. I took my seat towards the back of the room and tried to blend in the best I could. Being such a small town, there weren’t very many people in the room, but people were coming in and out constantly, and overall, that atmosphere was busy. A couple people asked me why I was here, so I assumed they don’t get visitors very often. No one seemed bothered by my presence though.
The first case, and actually only type of case, I saw was someone protesting a traffic violation. They claimed they’re speedometer was broken and they were actually on their way to the mechanic’s to get it fixed. I thought this was both funny and ironic. I knew a girl from high school who had this same problem and got a ticket. She however, decided not to try and get out of it. The judge gave him a small fine and made sure that he got his car fixed. The next couple cases were very similar; both males trying to get out of traffic violations. I had already been there for an hour and a half, and the smell was starting to really annoy me, so I decided to leave.
One aspect of psychology that I noticed right away was the atmosphere and tone of the room. It was obviously old and sort of gave off an undesirable feel. It definitely made me feel uncomfortable and I wasn’t even a part of a proceeding. I can only imagine that this made actual clients feel nervous. Another aspect is behavioral psychology. It was all about how you carried yourself and how you interacted with the others in the courtroom. I learned that this judge will respect you if you show him respect. One of the traffic violators was very polite and had some pretty valid points, but he was never rude to the judge or anyone in the room. The judge didn’t let him of, but he reduced the fine. The next traffic violator was obnoxious and made some pretty mean remarks to just about everyone he encountered entering and leaving the room. He even gave me a dirty look. He also showed little respect for the judge, who showed him now sympathy.
I went to the the Blackhawk county courthouse in Waterloo. I was there for about two and a half hours. It wasn't the first time I have been to the courthouse so when I arrived I knew where to go in order to watch the proceedings. I walked through the metal detectors and got through without any trouble. I then walked over to the jury information window and talked to a very nice lady who informed me what court rooms had stuff going on in them. I then found the court room and found an area to sit in the back of the room.
The first case I witnessed was with a lady who had been pulled over for rolling a stop sign and in the process of writing her a ticket the police officer noticed the woman was acting suscpicious. After a series of questions he noticed she was impared and asked to search her vehicle. The officer found Crack cocain in her possession. Not only was she under the influence but she had her two children in the vehicle as well. Not only did she have to pay for the possession charge but also for the moving violation. She was stripped of her privilege to drive. However, she was granted the opportunity to drive to and from work only. She had to pay court costs and was also assigned a probation officer which has other fews that go along with it. I only remember the judge stating that she owed 1,250 for the OWI and 1,315 for the possession charge but she couldn't afford it and was assigned to community service instead.
The second case I witnessed was a young man who was charged for beating his girlfriend for the second time. He pleaded guilty and had a bond posted for 15,000 dollars. He also broke probation because the beating took place about a year after his first beating. By the judges discretion his probation was extended even longer and if it were to happen again he would serve the rest of the time of his probation sentence in jail.
The were many aspects of psychology that took place the day of my courthouse experience. The main aspects that I noticed where behavioral and social psychology. I also noticed that the judge used discretion in both cases. Behavioral psychology applied with how the young man who beat his girlfriend was dressed when he appeared in front of the judge. You could tell that he normally didn't dress that way. Not because of his physical appearance but because the fact that he was wearing all dress closed besides the skating shoes he was wearing instead of dress shoes. Also the way he was acting was very polite and he didn't talk unless he was spoken to. To me he was acting this way because of the situation he was in instead of acting like himself he put on a front in order to better his chances of a lesser charge. Also Social when the judge showed sympathy for the lady who was caught driving under the influence of crack cocain. The judge had the right to take her children away but instead stated that she would not do that unless the lady had a second offense. Also the judge showed anger at first toward the woman but then towards the end started to show simpathy and became less hostile towards the woman. Discretion was shown for both the young man and the woman because she could have sentanced the young man to jail because he broke his probation but decided not to and gave him a higher fine and an extended probation. Also even though the lady received a OWI the judge allowed her to be able to drive to only to community service and work. That's better than nothing. I believe the judge used simpathy because she felt that the mother was the one working to support the children and by taking away her source of transportation then it might make it harder for the mother to provide for her family.
After the second case ended it was almost time for me to go to work. If I didn't have to go to work I could have stayed there as long as I could. I had a great learning experience while I was there and was able to use the things I learned in class and apply it to actual situations. This made my experience even more interesting. I'm glad I had the opportunity to do so.
I went to the court house in Iowa City a few weeks ago. I went early in the morning hoping to get it out of the way. I have been to the court house a few times for fighting minor traffic tickets but It was almost comical of what I saw when I was there. I was there for a few hours and the proceedings I saw was exactly what I went through so it was cool that I could see it from a different view as a process and not a punishment like I used to view it. There were a bunch of tired and hot and angry people in there. The first case I can remember was when a lady was not happy about her speeding ticket and it seemed apparent that the only reason she went to fight it was to argue on why she was the one who got pulled over and not the other people driving around her. The judge had to try to keep her under control because she was very upset and even tried to play the race card. I thought it was very humorous to see all the violations by minors. One high school girl was crying because she just turned 18 and she was drinking on her birthday and this meant that she couldn’t participate in her sport. It was very amusing and I smiled on multiple occasions.
Now as far as the courtroom work group I saw a very well-practiced process almost like they were going through the motions. Now I first saw that most of the work that they are participating in was very unglamorous and that they did not enjoy all of the crap that the people were giving them. I also noticed the more the people gave the work group respect the more they got in return which made everything go a lot smoother. Overall I had a more positive experience that I had 4 years ago but I would find it hard to be able to put up with that stuff on a daily basis.
On Monday morning a couple of classmates and I went to the Black Hawk County Court house in Waterloo and were there a little more than two hours. This experience was completely different than I thought it would be. When we first arrived we had to walk through a metal detector machine. We had a hard time trying to find a courtroom with something going on. After getting to know the ladies at the desks we figured out the schedule and got to see a few different proceedings.
The first one we attended was a man in his twenties I would say. He was being charged with burglary and possession of marijuana. He could have been charged with five years in prison but the judge let him off with two to five years on probation. The only other people in the court room observing was his grandpa and grandma. I could tell they were very upset and it was emotional for them to watch. The judge also noted that he had a previous alcohol charges that needed to be addressed. We walked in as this one was over half way over so we didn't get to see it from start to finish. After this we walked down back to the main floor and into a different room. In this room was a sentencing for a young woman who was caught with methamphetamines she was put on probation because she had no previous record. Right before this was a man charged with possession of marijuana for the third time. It was very hard to hear everything that was being said since they were facing a different direction and taking quietly. This mans case was pushed back and they left the room to go somewhere for reasons that I didn't catch. I was very surprised at how quick the sentencing goes, it took maybe fifteen minutes. Between these we talked with the judge, we told him that we were taking a psychology and law class at UNI. He answered some of our questions we had and inquired into our future plans. He was very nice and happy with his career. The prosecuting attorney was quite different. She was older and not very interested and happy with her job any more. When we approacher her to ask her questions we rolled her eyes like she didn't care to talk to us.
After watching these the most surprising observation was how these people presented themselves. The first male showed up looking scruffy with a baggy sweatshirt and jeans. The second looked like she just rolled out of bed, her hair was so greasy and sloppy and her sweatshirt was hanging off of her shoulder. I felt like my classmates and I were dressed more presentable and professional in our school clothes compared to them. If I were going to court I would dress nice and professional, I think that how you dress and present yourself can say a lot about you as a person. We were suppose to watch a plea at ten thirty. The defense attorney was late to show up. This to me seemed crazy. The judge was running around trying to call and get in contact with her but no one could. In life we have always been taught to be on time and if you aren't your punished with either a tardy, detention, or other punishment. Court is a serious place and I have always thought that if you didnt show up on time it would be too bad for you and they would just move on without you. To my surprise they waited around for her to show up for more than twenty minutes. When the attorney finally arrived the defendant was brought in handcuffs and cuffs around her ankles. She sorta gave us a glare as she walked by. The only other person observing was her husband. When he walked in they were winking at each other and whispering "I love you." It was sad to see someone in his situation. She was on probation and caught with vicodin. We didn't get to stay for the whole thing but when we were there the judge was asking questions like: do you understand if you plea guilty there will not be a trial, are you satisfied with the services provided to you by your attorney, what medications are you taking, do you need more time to talk with your attorney, etc.
Psychology is present in every case. The judge was asking her what medications she was on to determine if she could make the decision clearly. Abnormal psychology was present because some of the medication she was on was for depression and anxiety. Social psychology because its a social interaction and how people act and behave has a large impact on everyone involved. Cognitive psychology also played a role. The way the defendant presents themselves has an influence. Overall, I'm glad we had the opportunity to go to the court house and watch how things play out it.
Over Spring Break I went to the Story County Courthouse in Nevada. I got there around 9am and was directed to a courtroom where a bunch of people were sitting waiting for jury selection to start. I was immediately surprised about the size of the courtroom because it was so small. It was probably about the size of our classroom, give or take a few feet each direction. A lot of people were coming and going in the courtroom prior to jury selection actually starting. When it was time, the judge said a few words about the process that would follow. People were selected randomly from the computer to be the first twelve potential people to serve on the jury. From there, the attorneys introduced themselves and then the judge asked if anyone present had a reason why they may not be able to serve on the jury because of extenuating circumstances if the trial were to last late into the day or for more than one day. After some consideration, one man who had a funeral in a couple of hours was excused, he was replaced, and then the attorneys began doing their own thing. They introduced themselves and tried to make some jokes about being there to keep things lighthearted and less dull. All things considered, they really didn’t ask very many questions (an average of one per person probably) unless they were reasonably concerned about one individual, for instance the man who knew the defense attorney. They asked the basic questions about whether anyone had experience with a case similar to the one being presented today, if they had heard anything in the news about the case, or if anyone had experiences with family members on restricted licenses. One of the more in-depth questions was something along the lines of “What is your definition of reasonable doubt?” The man who knew the defense attorney and a woman who said she had hard feelings towards her son who had received a DUI like the defendant were both excused, along with some others whom I could not see a specific reason for excusing. The process didn’t take very long, which is probably only typical of trials in more rural areas and/or with cases that aren’t of much significance to anyone, including the media.
When the trial began, the judge explained how things would proceed and advised the jurors of their duties. The trial was about a man who was driving on a restricted license and got pulled over by a cop when he was breaking the rules of his license in two ways: the time of day was driving and where he was driving at. The only other people present in the courtroom were the defendant’s parents. The case centered around whether or not the guy was breaking the law with his actions. Both the defendant and the police officer who pulled him over were called to the witness stand and testified on the case. There were diagrams presented to illustrate where the defendant was pulled over and the police officer’s dashboard camera video was submitted as evidence. Throughout the trial, I couldn’t help but think of how boring and pointless it all seemed to be. I couldn’t help but zone out at times because from the very beginning the case seemed very clear to me. The prosecution went to great lengths to strengthen their case and bear the burden of proof well. I thought that the prosecution did a very good. What I enjoyed most about watching this trial was seeing how both the prosecution and the defense constructed different stories with different underlying motive. I think either the judge or the recorder had the worst jobs at this trial because they were pretty much just sitting there listening to the trial like the rest of us and rarely had involvement, unlike the attorneys.
I thought that the defendant was well represented because he was very boring, unemotional, and seemingly disinterested, while his attorney was kind of bubbly and jolly. I don’t think the defendant did a good job presenting himself to the jury because of his attitude. While I realize that this was probably a stressful situation for him, I would have at least tried to act more interested in my own fate. In the end, if I were a juror, I think I would have found him to be guilty. From the very start of the case, everything seemed to be very straightforward and the doubt that the defense tried to plant in everyone’s minds didn’t really seem to work.
The trial wasn’t very long; it maybe lasted around two hours, so in the end I was probably at the courthouse for around 3.5 hours. While there, the most predominant areas in which I saw psychology were social and behavioral psychology. The way the attorneys interacted with the jurors was a great example of social psychology. They wanted the jurors to feel comfortable and willing to hear out their side of the case, so they tried to keep things moving and keep the jurors happy. The way the attorneys acted towards each other and the judge also provided an example of social psychology. While the attorneys were friendly to each other on the side, they didn’t hold back from objecting to things during the trial. Having positive social interactions, even if they are meaningless and emotionless probably help to make everyone’s job easier and a little bit less stressful. In considering what was presented at trial, the jurors probably had to consider behavioral psychology quite frequently. Personally, I often thought about why the defendant was where he was at the time he was there and why he did it. Because both sides were presenting different stories, I found myself looking at the defendant’s behavior in court to try to infer more about his personality and what I thought about the case. While each aspect of psychology present in the courtroom was subject to each individual person’s perception, it was definitely a guiding force in atmosphere of the courtroom. Without the observations of behavioral psychology, the jury would probably have a much harder time producing a verdict.
I actually had to go to court in Black Hawk County one time and have been back on many occasions for friends. I was arrested in a couple of years ago for a simple misdemeanor and was later released on my own recognizance to appear in court at a later date. I didn't have to go to criminal court it was just the magistrate court but I do not have the time in my schedule to visit a courtroom between being a full time student and working nearly full time during the day every day.
But i do remember what it was like being in the court room probably because I knew I wasn't just there to visit and see what it was like. When I first walked in I had to Remove all the metal I had on me down to my belt. Once I passed there I had no clue where I was supposed to go so I actually did what was recommended on the top of the page and found someone to ask. While sitting in the waiting room awaiting to be called into the court room I noticed that i was dressed exceptionally better then the other people there waiting and I was the only one who didn't seem mad at the world.
When it finally came for me and the other people who apparently had the same court date/time as me to go in we all rose for the judge and one at a time she called up so read us our charges and ask what we wanted to plea. it was very quick because if you plead not guilty another court date was made for you and if you plead guilty like I did you would get your punishment right there. My judge was very nice and gave me the minimum fine and place me on self probation. All in all I my view of the courthouse is a very professional place and even though i didn't have any bad experiences while being there i would prefer not to go back unless I'm not being prosecuted that is.
I went to the Black Hawk County Court house today. It was a pretty interesting experience besides the fact that I had to wait a half hour before any court proceedings began (I made the mistake of coming during the lunch hour). As I walked into the court room that one of the ladies at the jury information window told me to go to the only people in the court room at the time were the prosecutor, the defendant, the court clerk. The prosecutor seemed to be a pretty funny guy, he told me that they don't allow Urbandale apparel in the court room (i was wearing an Urbandale football hoodie). After the light hearted atmosphere that the prosecutor created had faded things got serious in the court room once the jury, the defense attorney, and the judge entered.
Apparently I had came during a exciting time in the trial. The defense was making their final statement to the jury about the case so this gave me a pretty good understanding of exactly what was going on in this particular case. The defendant was an African american male probably in his early 20's being charged with possession of a firearm and interference with official acts with a firearm. There may have been more charges but the defense lawyer didn't talk about those while I was there. The main defense argument was the creditably of the eye witnesses that identified the defendant as the person fleeing from an area of 15-20 people on a dark night in the middle of the street in January. Evidently someone called the police because of this suspicious looking group in the street and once the police showed up many people ran and the officer at the scene identified the defendant as one of those people and said that the defendant was running while holding his gun in his pants. The defense lawyer kept saying that because of the darkness and the speed at which the defendant was running that the police officer could not have known that the defendant was carrying a gun. The prosecution must have showed a video at some point in the trial of the defendant coming back to the area of which he ran from to look for the gun that he supposedly ditched while he was running away. The video was probably pretty good evidence for the prosecution, the defense argument for why the defendant had come back to the scene was weak and actually I didn't know what the defense attorney was even trying to say. However, there were no finger prints on the gun which really helped the defense's case.
While in the court room I picked up on some body language that the prosecutor seemed like he was trying to convey to the jury while the defense attorney was making his final arguments. Sometimes he would have his eyes closed slumping in his chair and right when I thought to myself "wow is he really sleeping during this" he would make an objection. The objections were kind of pointless but they were warranted because the defense attorney make two separate statements that weren't true by mistake. The prosecutor's body language was basically displaying to the jury that he didn't think the defense had a chance to win the case and things need to hurry up and get wrapped up. The defendant seemed bored, he kept leaning back in his chair looking real relaxed just looking at the ceiling. What appeared to be the defendant's father was the only other person in the audience.
I stayed for about an hour and half in the courtroom and the entire time was the closing arguments of the defense. I really wanted to see the verdict but obviously the trial can be painfully slow process and I would have to stick around a lot longer to hear the verdict.
Courthouse visit Blog: Tell us where you went, what you saw and experienced, and how long you visited. Please be sure to discuss what aspects of psychology you saw in action during your visit.
I went to the Black Hawk County Courthouse when I had to drive a friend to Waterloo to get a breathalizer put in their vehicle so I made them go with me.
At the information window we were pointed in the right direction. When we got there all we were able to view with the time we had were cases about traffic violations.
Most people seemed bored or really annoyed to be there, probably because they had to take time off work to fight a ticket they feel they don't deserve. Psychology is involved here in that the people there fighting their ticket have a seemingly external locus of control because they think this negative consequence in their life is caused by others and not their own actions. Another thing I noticed and found interesting is the personal distance we allow people of authority and the differing body language each occupation and/or social class presents.
I visited the Blackhawk County Courthouse and witnessed the morning proceedings of a pretty crazy trial. When I walked into the courthouse, I was convinced that this was going to be one boring trial I was about to sit in on. It was relatively quiet. The courthouse was VERY clean and orderly, unlike some of the other courthouses I have seen in Polk and Marshall counties especially. When I walked into the courtroom (301) I sat in the back. The prosecuting attorney seemed excited and was convinced that the young man on trial was about to be brought to justice. This was before I knew anything about the case.
I was sure that this was about to be a swift trial. However, a tardy public defender slowed things a bit and didn't sit too well with the judge. When the public defender did show up he seemed unprepared, unorganized, and despite all the solid evidence brought forth in the courtroom, this guy was putting forth a motion to dismiss before the judge on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence. The judge quickly assured him that he believed there was more than sufficient evidence and that Mr. Brown would be lucky to not be charged on all 4 counts. The public defender also seemed to be reading straight from the paper in his hand throughout the entire trial, not once looking up to make eye contact with the jury or the judge. As bad as I wanted to see this kid punished, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the level of defense he was getting on behalf of the state.
Over the previous couple hours, I had learned about how Mr. Brown was a former felon and had been trafficking in stolen weapons. Mr. Brown was also accused of interfering with offical acts with a dangerous weapon or firearm. When cornered, Mr. Brown had then attempted to flee. This young man showed absolutely no remorse in the courtroom, many times just staring all around the room at everyone and everything. Something else I noticed was that his father noisely entered the courtroom late sporting a do-rag and a velour jumpsuit with skulls printed all over. He most certainly wasn't helping his kid's cause. You could tell the judge was agitated.
I couldn't see the jury very well from where I was seated, but I believe that i counted 9 women and 6 men. All of the jurors but one were of middle age. There was one elderly man. I found it rather odd that there was only 1 black juror among 15 in a trial that was prosecuting a young black man. It didn't seem right to me. I think the guy should have said something to his attorney. This was yet another fine example of a poor defense provided by the same folks who are doing the prosecuting. It makes me wonder how much of this is intentional as far as assignment of bad public defenders to certain cases. I'm not sure if this is even how it works, but its something I have always had concerns about.
I went to visit the Black Hawk County Court in Waterloo. The case I saw was one of a felon with a gun posession. I had the opportunity to meet with the prosecuting attorney who got me up to speed on the case. A little background information:
The defendant had a prior felon charge of an armed robbery in Illinois. He served time and then was on parole when he came over to Iowa. Here, he was at a fight that was going on and was identified by a woman there that he was the only person involved who was armed. Upon the officer arriving at the scene and the defendant being identified, he took off running. His brother followed. The officer persued them and they were later taken into custody. Long story short, the brother told the police that the defendant was the one with the gun the entire time. He admitted this because they informed him that they saw the defendant throw the gun when he was running, a little white lie that he fell for. When the put him in a holding cell with his brother, another tactic they used to get evidence against the defendant, the brother told the defendant that he told the police that. The defendant is clearly upset about this because that means they have verbal testimony against him.
So, case goes to trial, and a witness testifies that the defendant was the one who had the gun all along and he was in fact the only one at the scene of the dispute who was armed. However, upon leaving the stand, some of the defendants friends and family who were in the gallery, two to be exact, started yelling at him and calling him a snitch. These two women were held back in the group and the judge simply told them that they weren't allowed to talk anymore and if he heard a single peep out of them he would hold them in contempt of court. A recess was taken and when they gathered again, the two women weren't in the gallery. The real kicker though, is that there was yet another witness who testified about seeing the defendant with the gun, and after the outburst in the court with the two women, he got back on the stand and recounted everything he said. The brother that was also supposed to testify also decided not to. Seems a little fishy if you ask me. Because of this, the videos that the prosecution had of the interviews in which at least two people identify the defendant couldn't be played.
3/39/12
The second day of court, the prosecution chose to rest, so the defense did as well. However, suddenly, the defense requested that the judge grant a mistrial because of some of the questions the prosecution had asked the day before that he thought were rather misleading and harsh. However, the judge had allowed it because the witness had in fact taken back everything he had literally just said on the witness stand. The prosecution came back with a rebuttal. He said if that's what the defense was asking, he wanted to re-open the case and present the dvd testimony to the jury so they could impeach the witness. That way, he could still show the video, but it wouldn't be for the purpose of making the defendant look guilty, for for impeaching the witness that basically just lied on the stand. He however, knowing that even though the jury would be told to not hold that video interview against the defendant, they would. This reason alone is why he chose not to show the video after the witness recanted his testimony, in fairness to the defense. With the defense asking for a mistrial however, the prosecution was clearly aggitated and now threatened this.
Fortunately, the judge wouldn't allow a mistrial and the jury came back in at 11 for closing arguments. I only heard the prosecution, and let me tell you, that was enough for me. His alone took 40 minutes! It definitely got a little boring. He did a great job though. He was engaging the jury, walking around, using chalk board, pulling evidence out to show it again, and he had a power point. It got somewhat repetitive, however I realize this was for the jury's sake, to continue to drill into their heads a guilty verdict based on all the evidence they still had on the defendent despite all that had happened the last two days in court.
I left after the prosecutions closing statement, however I received word from the prosecutor that the jury only took 15 minutes to decide on a guilty verdict. Quite a success for the prosecution!
Although long and a little boring at times, seeing this trial was very interesting. I saw psychology used many times throughout it. The first time was in the interview tapes they received, even though they didn't get to be shown in court. The way the police told that little white lie to the defendant's brother to get him to tell them what they wanted was a perfect example of what we learned about the police being able to lie and make the people they're interviewing believe something that isn't true. I had never realized until we learned that in class that they could do that. The way they put the two brothers in the holding cell together was a great one as well. Probably the best I saw the whole trial! I mean, it was something that was soooo simple but they fell for it! And since they'd both been in trouble before you would think they would realize that they were being recorded, clearly they didn't though. So when the two brothers thought they were safe to conspire about their stories, they were really incriminating themselves. The women's outburst in the courtroom was another excellent example of the effact people have on others during a trial. I think it's safe to say their outburst about the men being snitches got to them and got them thinking about what could happen if it got out to other people and they backed down. Luckily, it didn't hurt the trial. Another example was the way the prosecution kept repeating himself to the jury, getting it into their heads all the evidence they had against the defendant. He was also very friendly with them, making him seem like the guy's side they wanted to be on, not the criminal who was already a felon and with the evidence presented was more than likely guilty in this crime too.
All in all it was a really fun experience, no matter how boring it got at times. Seeing everything I did was really cool and I'm glad I got to watch it.
I went to a courthouse this past summer to watch a murder trial that had been delegated to my home county. My mom was actually a member of the jury for the trial. I was particularly interested to see this case because the defense was using an insanity defense, which I knew would be interesting, seeing as I am a psychology major. The whole trial went on for a week, but I only saw the final three days of it. What I missed were jury selection, opening statements, and the defense's case and some of the prosecution. I was shocked when I showed up for the trial and found that I had missed the entire defense, but I found out that the defense only had one witness. The defense's only witness was a character witness, the defendant's mother, who apparently told the story of how her son had some sort of disorder, but they were never able to afford treatment or medication for him. As the trial progressed, it became more and more obvious that the defense had nothing. Their insanity defense was incredibly weak, partly I would assume, because they couldn't find an expert that would testify to the defendant having a mental disorder.
I went to the trial with my best friend, Kelli, who plans on going to law school and interned with the law office in my hometown during high school. When we first arrived at the courthouse, we had to go through a metal detector and had our bags checked. We sat near the back in the courthouse. The media was all over this case. Not a lot of exciting things happen in Carroll, Iowa, so having a murder trial sent to our courthouse was a big deal. There were several reporters outside the courthouse because they only allowed one camera inside the actually courtroom. Several newspaper writers were in the audience. It was particularly interesting watching the media on the final day of the trial. They were writing frantically when the verdict was read.
I saw the prosecution's last three witnesses, which were a clinical psychologist, the police officer that arrested the defendant, and the warden at the prison where the defendant was held. This part of the trial obviously included clinical psychology because the defense was trying to show that the defendant suffered from bipolar disorder. However, the defense did not have a psychologist testify, and the prosecution had a clinical psychologist who had interviewed the defendant and came to the conclusion that while the boy was creepy and possibly a little imbalanced, he did not have a mental disorder. More proof of the defense's incompetence or perhaps indifference was that the defense attorney did not cross-examine the clinical psychologist or the police officer. They asked very few questions of the warden.
All three testimonies that I saw were very interesting. The warden brought some really disturbing evidence. One was a recording of the defendant speaking with one of his friends over the phone. In it, he described what it felt like when he killed his victim. He told his friend, "It felt good. Really good." I swear I broke out into goosebumps when I heard that recording. It was so creepy. The warden also brought a letter that the defendant had written. It included a amateur rap that he wrote about the crime he committed.
The prosecution did an excellent job presenting and breaking down the evidence. They had visual aids, voice recordings, and excellent witness testimonies. This includes a little psychology about sensation and perception. By presenting evidence in a number of ways, the prosecution was encouraging the jurors to visualize the crime, in essence making it more powerful and real to them. When we saw closing arguments on the final day, it was obvious that the prosecution had the trial all but wrapped up. They were meticulous in pointing out to the jury that they had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, every aspect of first degree murder and first degree robbery. In comparison, the defense looked pathetic, repeatedly telling the jury that "obviously, something was wrong with him [the defendant]," yet they were unable to back up that claim with any substantial evidence or testimony. This part of the trial had a lot to do with social psychology and persuasion. Both attorneys were confident and poised when they gave their closing arguments, and a person is more likely to believe persuasion that uses "powerful" language - meaning that there are no "um"s or "ah"s and the speaker is confident in what they were saying. Overall, I thought seeing that trial was really interesting and I was glad to have the experience.
I visited the Black Hawk County Courthouse a couple days ago. It was a pretty intimidating experience at first. I felt out of place and I felt like people were staring at me. I’m not from around here, so it was a pretty stressful situation just finding the courthouse, a place to park, and the right rooms to go to once inside the courthouse. Thankfully, I got through the metal detector smoothly, and didn’t embarrass myself too much. I don’t think I had even been to a court house prior to this visit.
There weren’t a lot of people present at the courthouse when I was there. The court proceedings I watched weren’t too crazy. I was at the courthouse for an hour or so, and I didn’t get the chance to see a jury when I was there. The court proceedings that occurred while I was there involved traffic violations. The room was a lot smaller than I expected it would be. Everything was pretty low-key. I sort of pictured that all the proceedings would be intense and loud, because I had only seen depictions of court cases on television prior to visiting the court house. Everybody seemed pretty aggravated and annoyed. I felt relieved that I was there as just an observer. I feel like this experience has made me a lot more prepared in the chance that I will have to go to court some day. I feel like being exposed to the courthouse has been a beneficial experience.
Psychology was evident in a lot of the situations. Social psychology played a big role. Every interaction between people can potentially play a big role in the case. The way in which people choose to present themselves and behave can influence the way in which the judge rules. Also, in cases where there is a jury present the jurors must interact with eachother and reach a verdict. Their own personal views, experiences, and cognitions help them determine if they see the client as guilty or not guilty.
I went to the court house during spring break near my home. I didn't get to see anything very interesting, I observed a few small cases, which mainly seemed to involve incidences with motor vehicles. There was one case in which the defendant was trying to repeal a red light camera violation. She explained that due to an icy road her car had skid through the light. The pictures made it seem pretty obvious that she was not meaning to break the law, and had a police officer been present he would have used the circumstances and his digression to probably let her go free. The judge by the end let her off without a ticket.
I watched part of another trial in which a man had been caught drunk driving. He really had no hope from the beginning. The evidence played a large part in this case along with the testimony of the officer. The defendant ended up being found guilty.
The final trial I sat in upon was a child custody case. I found this to be most interesting as I had not been allowed to sit in on my own parent's custody battle a few years ago. The children's guardian ad-litem did a very nice job. She talked about how she thought it would be best to keep the two siblings together, and how they should not be removed from their school. I believe her testimony was most influential to the judge. The father did not help his own case out by acting childish, and still showing his hostile feelings towards his ex-wife.
For my courthouse visit, I went to the Waterloo city Courthouse. I got an amazing opportunity to witness a child custody case between a biological father and biological mother. The father subpoenaed the mother for shared custody between the mother with his two girls Zoey and Hope. What made this court case fairly significant and also so much more interesting was the fact that the father had a hired attorney and the mother chose to represent herself. Right off the bat, although I did not stay to view the outcome of the trial, you could tell that the man equipped with the attorney had a definite but slight upper had on his ex-wife. It seemed that it was much easier for the prosecuting or plaintiff side to be almost completely objective to the father’s cause. I felt like it was much harder for the mother to prove her point and to even pose a threat to the case because all her questions were asked in a very personal manner. I felt like her tactics just weren’t very orthodox and almost couldn’t be considering her situation. Nonetheless, she slowly began to present herself in this case.
The court case was actually resuming once I had arrived. The first things that occurred were the bringing of the witnesses to the stand. I only stayed long enough to see all of the plaintiff’s witnesses which included a female longtime family friend on the father’s side of the family, a co-worker of the father, and two over a decade long friendships presented. I liked the way the attorney used each witness as a way to build the father’s credibility and his story throughout the case. She asked objective questions to where the judge could plainly understand each witness’s relationship with the father, how the father treated his girls, and ultimately was he suitable to take care of the girls without the supervision of another adult. Each witness also seemed to have their own stories and their way of telling it.
The aspects of psychology that I distinctly noticed were Behavioral Psych and Social Psych. You could definitely tell that the social environment played a huge part on the witnesses and their account of the father, from what I saw, and even the way they reacted when the mother went about her recross. Studying each witness as they were up on the stand, I noticed the difference in each of them as far as their reactions to certain questions, certain phrases, and whether they were telling the truth. I could most definitely tell which ones were possibly lying whenever asked a question; especially ones from the mother.
This assignment worked out perfect for me, because I was already planning on visiting a courthouse anyways! Unfortunately, my boyfriend got into some trouble at a bar in Algona, and there him and his friend had a scheduled court date. Therefore I asked to tag along. I knew this wasn’t exactly what they wanted, but oh well – I really didn’t give them a choice.
It was at the Algona, Iowa courthouse. We got there in plenty of time, but struggled finding the courtroom. People were not very nice to us in helping us find directions. However, we found it in plenty of time, and got in their a few minutes early.
My first thought of the courthouse was that I couldn’t believe how not nice it was. Not that it was bad. However I’ve seen these grandiose courtrooms like the one in the capitol. So that was kind of a shock. It also kind of reminded me of a church. I know that sounds weird, but the seats were like pews. And I mean, I guess I’ve seen that on the television shows and what not. But I also never really thought about it. So that’s what that reminded me of.
I also couldn’t get over that the judge was late. And not even a little bit late, but like, fifteen minutes late. He also didn’t even apologize for being late. He acted like it was no big deal. He also was kind of smug, and just “above it all.” As if his time was much more important than everyone else’s time. Which brings me to my next observation that we were not the only ones there.
There were about twenty people there or so, including us. The judge would just call people up one by one to talk to them. There were a variety of people there for different reasons. One guy was there for trespassing, which apparently my boyfriend ranks lower than public intoxication. I guess I would have to agree.
The nice thing about knowing the people I came with, was because I got to really hear about everything that went on between him and the judge. His friend came with, and since they had the same ticket, the judge called them both up together. I don’t think I like that. I feel like it’s disrespectful and once again, shows that the judge’s time is more important than theirs. They really didn’t care though. But apparently the judge just asked them if they pleaded guilty or not guilty. They both pleaded guilty.
The psychology themes I found were mainly in social psychology, as well as behavior modification. It was interesting how respected the judge was, when I felt like he gave little to no respect to everyone else. Everyone was their on time while he was fifteen minutes. And even though there were twenty of us, everyone still followed his instructions. It is interesting to see how his power over the people when he provides little respect to them. It was also to see people react to their sentencing and getting their name called. Some people were nervous and anxious. Others, like my boyfriend and his friend, cared less. Every situation is different and it is interesting to see how it is all handled.
I went to the Black Hawk County Courthouse on Monday, March 26. A couple of classmates and I attended a few court cases for a couple of hours starting at around 9 o'clock in the morning.
We had a difficult time figuring out where certain trials were occurring and which cases were going on for us to see. There were some we intended on watching which were not occurring for some reason so we were running around for a while until we found a case. One of the cases we were excited to see which would be perfect for this class was a competency hearing. We later found out this hearing was rescheduled for a later date for a reason we did not know.
The first courtroom we attended was nearing the end but we caught just enough to hear the sentencing of the defendant. He was a young man pleading guilty to burglary and possession of marijuana. His grandparents were the only ones there for the sentencing which was painful to watch. He would have had to spend five years in prison but he got off with two to five years of probation. The judge acknowledged the defendants past with alcohol charges and saw alcohol was related with his burglary charge as well so the judge issued the defendant to attend some classes at a local treatment center.
The second room we sat in on was interesting. There were a couple of cases in which the defendants pled guilty to their charges. What made this experience even better was the fact we had a judge acknowledge us. He asked us who we were there for. When we stated we were there for a class assignment, he was intrigued at the fact we were in a psychology and law class. He said he had never taken a class like that, but assumed it would be very interesting. He made sure we were comfortable and assured us we could ask him anything we wanted to know about what happens in his courtroom. This made me think of judges in a completely different way because I had always felt intimidated by the judge. Being a judge is such a prestigious honor and everyone respects him or her, there is a reason they sit above all others in the room. In the first case, the defendant's lawyer asked for a later hearing in order to talk with more people and gather more information before pleading a certain way. The judge asked where the defendant was and the lawyer responded he was running late and was on his way. This surprised me because if I knew I had to be in court for something, I would not be a second late. I asked the judge if they take that action into consideration in the later hearing and he said it didn't really affect anything because the court is usually understanding of different reasons for arriving late. The next case in this courtroom was a young woman around the age of 18 or so charged for methamphetamine. Her appearance appalled me. She walked in with her hair greased back from not showering and wore a zip up hoodie with the sleeve hanging off of her shoulder. She looked as if she had rolled out of bed and did not have a care in the world about her case. She was let off with probation due to her lack of a criminal record besides the fact she had violated a few no contact orders.
The last courtroom we attended involved a women held in custody regarding a probation violation as well as possession of pain killers. What was interesting about this case was the defendant had taken anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications. The judge asked her if she was on any medications at the time and she answered yes as she listed all of the medications given to her. The judge asked her to make sure she was fully aware and understood she was about to plea guilty.
I found many things interesting while I attended these different court cases. The appearances of the defendants shocked me. I understand these people are not exactly angels of the earth, but you would think they would show up to court dressed appropriately to help their cases. There were people in a T-shirt and jeans, a hoodie with the sleeve hanging off of the shoulder, hair slicked back and not showered. No matter the case, if I were to appear in court for whatever reason, I would make sure I looked presentable. I also found the little care and effort of a few lawyers. I understand it is an every day job just like other people go to work, but some looked as if they would much rather be somewhere else. I approached one of the lawyers to ask a couple of questions and she closed her eyes for a few seconds and opened them as if she were annoyed by the fact I wanted to ask her about her job. If someone were observing what I did for a living, I would be proud and honored to answer questions. I was also interested by the defense lawyer appearing late for the third courtroom we attended. Our whole lives, we are trained to never show up late. We are frowned upon if we appear late to anything. In school, we would receive detentions for appearing late. I was shocked when we watched the members of the court hunt down the defense lawyer. The judge was calling her numerous times and one of the lawyers sat and waited. I thought court was a very precise and strict procedure, but apparently I was wrong. I was also interested by how quickly court goes. The lawyers and judges spoke so quickly and intelligently, it was hard to keep up at times.
I saw several aspects of psychology used in the court. First, I saw behavioral psychology by the way people chose to dress for their cases. The people I saw were all dressed inappropriately for court which gave me the impression they did not care at all what happened to them. Another behavior I noticed was how respectful everyone was to the judge. I know you have to be respectful but everyone surrendered to the authority of the judge in the courtroom. Behavioral psychology was also evident when people walked in late for their court case as if they did not care. Abnormal psychology appeared when we were in the last court case due to her conditions of depression and anxiety. Biopsychology is also clear in the same case because she was on many medications to alter the chemical processes in her brain. These chemical alterations in the brain may inhibit the defendants cognitive processing of what was occurring in the court room at that moment which led the judge to break everything occurring down to her.
I found this assignment very interesting and beneficial. I had never seen a court case happen and it was eye opening to watch. I now feel as if I understand more about the court system than only seeing what occurs in movies and television shows.
I went to Blackhawk County Courthouse on March 28, 2012. We sat-in for about an hour and a half. After walking around and asking what was interesting we found a custody trial to sit-in on. The judge, attorney, and both mother and father were notified and okayed us students sitting in their case. The father was the petition and the mother was representing herself, or pro se. At first, the case seemed fairly normal, and we learned that this was the second day or trial. I noticed during the cross examination of witnesses that the mother's questions did not seem to have a purpose, and were emotionally charged. I thought for sure she would not win with the way things were going. Then, for one witness, she seemed to make strides. It was brought up about the father that he left for months at a time, was bipolar, couldn't hold down a job, and addicted to video games, which helped the mother's case for custody even better. We saw a total number of 4 witnesses. From a psychological standpoint, I noticed that the attorney had a special presentation of each of the witnesses; had a separate purpose for them. The first woman showed the father loved his girls, while the second's questions showed the father's supportive side. It was also apparent that the mother was asking some questions just because the attorney asked the opposite. During the trial, one witness asked the mother a question back and she answered it, even though she was unable to testify at the time. That made the judge very irritated. It was funny. I thought the woman was in over her head choosing to attempt pro se, representing her self. We left during the recess and outside the father says to us, "I'm not as bad as it seems."
I recently visited the Waterloo traffic court and I had a very interesting experience. Back in February I was charged with leaving the scene of a property damage. I was pulling into a parking spot and I nicked a car on my way pulling out unbeknownst to me. I parked in a different parking space and proceeded to my friends apartment. Hours later I received a call from the police saying that my car had been involved in a, "hit and run". After I spoke with the officer and exchanged information with the other party I was given a court date. At m initial court date I attended and asked for a continuance to seek legal advice. I was also given the choice to plead guilty or not guilty to the charge, I of course did not know what to do at the time so I requested the continuance. I would definitely say that psychology definitely played a role in the way that the judge talked to us. He spoke in a very clear and some what loud tone. Almost slow and lethargic on purpose, like we were incompetent. though I'm sure his intentions were to just aware us of our rights but I found his approach condescending. By me feeling offended I was some what irritated by him and when my name was called it affected the way I perceived him. At the continuance I wound up pleading guilty because I did not want to go through a jury trial for a traffic violation. Over all this experience opened my eyes to the ways of the legals system and it made me aware of some rights i did not know I had.
I went to the Polk County Courthouse during spring break when I visited with my Mom. Just to let you know, this courthouse is extremely busy and extremely huge and hard to figure out at first where to go. We parked our car at a meter, giving ourselves around two hours to see a court proceeding or attempt to see one. First, we went to the wrong building, then we had to book it to the actually courthouse a couple of blocks down the street from where we were. We went through the metal detectors, both of us got in, as well as the people who were in front of us. I then went to ask the lady at the front of calling people to go to specific rooms, and asked her where I would go to see a proceeding. She sent me to another lady that was a few levels up. So my Mom and I waited for the lady to return from lunch, about twenty minutes later, a guy who had been sitting near the door like us went into her office, then I did as well. She wrote down two places where felony proceedings would be found at.
My Mom and I entered just one court felony proceeding vs. the state. We only had thirty more minutes before our parking space would go over its time. So we stayed in the room for around fifteen to twenty minutes. The defendant came in a little after his scheduled time around 1:05 pm. The attorney for the state asked me who I was, and I told her I was a student, so then she left my Mom and I alone. Then the defendant’s attorney entered. She first talked to them, briefly, and then went up to where the states’ attorney was at. I saw the judge for a matter of five seconds, because he walked out of his office and then left the room. The defendant’s attorney mouthed to him and his friend he had come along with him if they knew who my Mom and I were, and he shook his head. Then a guy in a suit came in and swiftly asked where the judge went. The defendant’s attorney said he stepped out for a minute. Then the suit guy left. Yet, again the defendant’s attorney mouthed to him and his friend if that guy had said anything to them. The defendant shook his head. So both attorneys were trying to figure things out, they were basically setting up a time and date for when the defendant would go on trial. So my Mom and I decided to leave, so we wouldn’t be penalized for our parking space, because this whole process took us two hours to accomplish coming to this room, to not really seeing a true court procedure happen, besides one getting dismissed to another time.
During this court proceeding, even though nothing really happened, I noticed some social psychology with the way the attorneys interacted. The state attorney was all business trying to figure out the date, while the defendant’s attorney was a little spacy and if asked directly would then only answer and say how that date would or wouldn’t work out for her client. Also behavioral psychology was played out with the way the defendant dressed, lucky for him it was dismissed to another time, because he had on baggy jeans and a few too many layers of shirts on top. If he was going for the look to impress he failed at that. Along that line he was slouched and didn’t really seem to care who was in the front of the room, however when he walked in and saw both my Mom and I sitting in the court room, he did a double take. Probably wondering who we were and if he had a background knowledge of where we came from. His behavior became more nervous and he didn’t say a whole lot, unless his attorney talked to him directly.
This experience was brief and I would of liked to of actually see a more in-depth court proceeding, however I did learn that I’ll only attend a proceeding if I truly have to. Just being inside the court house made me tense up with nervousness. Overall, I did enjoy being able to just be inside the courthouse and experience a little of the crazy that goes on there.