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 visited Blackhawk Country Courthouse on Tuesday October 23, 2012 from 1:15-2:30 pm. The trial I sat in on was the state of Iowa vs Shanda D. Holmes. She was being charged for assault & domestic abuse causing bodily injury on June 22, 2012 to victim Leonard Haynes who was her boyfriend & whom she had a child with. Shanda was pleading not guilty & had an attorney defending her against the state prosecutor.
When I walked into the room, Shanda and her defense lawyer were already sitting down at their desk in the front of the room. The prosecuting attorney walked into the court room in a sort of intimidating manner and scowled towards Shanda, which she also did repeatedly throughout the trial. What was interesting was that the jury walked in & took their seats and they proceeded to share their opening statements but Leonard Haynes was not even present yet. He arrived about 5 minutes after the trail had already begun. When he was called upon as the first witness, there was definitely tension in the room between he and Shanda. Everyone seemed to be aware of their change in behavior & social interaction with their body language and facial expressions as they look at one another. It was clearly very emotional for both of them.
After being questioned about the entire history of their relationship & being able to provide even the smallest minor details about it, Leonard Haynes then had difficulty remembering details about the actual event that they were in court for. The prosecuting attorney asked him if he had spent the night at Shanda's house anytime in June and he replied that he did not remember very well because it was so long ago, but that he probably did. That was a huge red flag to me & really confused me why he was reluctant to provide information about the incident. I felt like he was not even fighting for his own case and wondered why there seemed to be more to this case than what was stated. Leonard denied remembering what the fight was even about that turned into the escalated violent argument that caused physical injury. He said that he was "tense," suggesting that the stress in that moment of the event caused him to not remember things that clearly. Apparently his perception was thrown off by such a stimulating event. When he was answering questions, he kept rubbing his face, jaw and around his mouth, which made me think that he might have been lying, but then I realized it was just because he was uncomfortable and nervous. The judge had to ask him over and over again to please keep his hands away from his mouth because it made it hard for everyone to hear.
Leonard got really emotional & could not hold back his tears when talking about some parts of their relationship or the events of the incident over the summer. At first I thought he was trying to get the jurors' sympathy and bias them in his favor, but it still did not seem like he was really on his own side trying to get Shanda convicted. He just kept repeating that all he was trying to do that morning was calm her down and soothe the situation & that is all that he has tried doing since then, too. Unable to recall exactly how he was injured, he even went as far as saying that he could have done it to himself by reaching through the door with broken glass or picking it up. He said that she never threw anything directly at him, but rather the wall, and he understood that she was just frustrated. It was around this point that he admitted that he did not even want to be there to testify against her & still has really strong feelings for her. That day, and the day in court, he just wanted to work things out by calmly discussing issues because that was how things worked in the home he was raised in. So it turned out that the victim was the one that was actually bias, wanting Shanda to get off free so that they could be in contact, take pressure off their child, and take care of the child.
When describing the injuries inflicted on his arm, Leonard called it a "small cut" that he was unsure of how it got there in the first place and kept saying "it was nothing." He most likely was not aware of the psychological implications of labeling it in different terms, but his word choice certainly could have influenced the jurors' opinion of the incident & Shanda's intentions. Sensation - detecting a stimulus - also played a role in his testimony because he said he did not even know that he had the cut until the police pointed it out to him. Shanda's defending attorney cross examined Leonard to clarify the order of events & a few minor details. His story stayed consistent & he maintained his intentions of not wanting the trial to end unfavorably for Shanda.
I left after Leonard was done being questioned because my parking meter only had an hour and twenty minutes but I wish I could have stayed for the whole thing because I'm still wondering what even started the fight that morning. Shanda would not have been kicking through doors, screaming, throwing glass, and calling the police for no reason. It would have been nice to have been able to stay for the whole thing & see what the jury decided.
terms used: intimidation, behavior, social psychology, body language, emotions, memory, stress, perception, bias, cognitive psychology, sensation
When I entered courtroom # 7 at Black Hawk County Courthouse, I was unsure of what the trial was about, or how long it would take. There was a judge, the District Attorney, the defendant, Shana D. Holmes and her defense attorney. The county prosecutor was also present. 12 jury members were also present that were selected at random. Shana appeared to be slightly shaken, with a few tears.
The trial that I viewed yesterday at Black Hawk County Courthouse was based on a domestic abuse charge with bodily injury. The title was the State of Iowa vs. Shana D Holmes, who allegedly assaulted victim Leonard D Haynes. On June 22, 2012, Shana supposedly harmed Leonard during an argument between the two. The state claims that during a time of rage, Shana slammed a screen door on her house, broke glass, and cut Leonard to the point of laceration. She then proceded to call the police, and left in Leonard's car before she could be questioned by officers.
The above states the prosecutor's opening statements to the 12 jury members that were assigned to this trial. The prosecution was pushing for a guilty charge on Shana, and felt that she was maliciously trying to injure the victim. Leonard was then promptly brought into the courtroom following the prosecution's statements and questioning of their first witness began.
Leonard Haynes was visibly upset during the questioning, and had trouble recalling the facts about the case. His cognitive abilities seemed to be hindered by his emotional state. Leonard said repeatedly that he was trying to 'calm the situation' down. During his testimony he also appeared nervous, fidgeting and stuttering throughout the entire testimony. Leonard's social past and psychology played a significant role in his testimony. Leonard stated on more than one occasion that he was raised to be a family man, and felt that he wanted to keep his family together. One shocking turn of events was when Leonard said that he didn't want to testify and didn't want to press charges on Shana. This made it hard for the prosecution to have a strong argument, and the prosecution's testimony ended soon after Leonard made these statements.
After the prosecution, Shana's defense attorney cross-examined the trial, and found out some interesting facts about what really happened on June 22. As the defense questioned Leonard, he seemed to feel agitated and uneasy, going back and forth on his stories. His behavior took a dramatic turn of events when questioned whether or not he allowed Shana to call the police. Leonard stated that he did withhold the phone from Shana, and made her go outside to the neighbors to call them. In the previous testimony by the prosecution, Leonard also claimed that Shana threw glass at the wall, but during the defense's questioning, he went back back and forth about where he was when the glass was thrown. This could have been due to the fact that he didn't want Shana to be convicted of a guilty charge, and also why he was keeping his answers so vague.
I felt that this trial was very emotionally charged. At many times, both the defendant and the victim were getting choked up and wiping their eyes. Both appeared nervous and uneasy, as well. Due to both being so emotional, especially the victim, I felt like the prosecution probably lost their case. It was clear the Leonard did not want to cooperate with the prosecution, and did not like playing the victim.
This trial was a wonderful experience for me, and I plan to attend the courthouse more times to view more. I am majoring in pre-law so it is a great way to get a feel for the way a court room works, and how the members of the judicial system contribute to finding the ultimate justice for each of their clients.
I went to the case of the State vs. William L Johannsen (not sure on the spelling). The trial that I attended actually was not the initial trial. The defendant’s attorney had made a motion to suppress evidence. This trial was over that motion. The trial consisted of the defending attorney, defendant, prosecuting attorney, a police officer as a witness, and the judge. In this particular instance, the defendant’s attorney was actually doing the prosecuting but for the sake of this blog I will still refer to him as the defendant’s attorney.
In this case, the landlord called an officer because he viewed drug paraphernalia in the resident’s trailer while he was doing maintenance. The officer was let into the residence by the landlord and viewed the paraphernalia but did not touch it or search for other items. He left the premises to obtain a search warrant. It was declared a violation of the resident’s fourth amendment right that the officer entered the premises without a search warrant. The question of this particular trial was whether or not the evidence seized from the defendant’s residence and his statements at the station could be used against him. The judge determined that if the officer had not entered the residence, he would not have had enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant in the first place. He granted the motion to suppress. This applied to the evidence seized in the apartment and the statement of the defendant at the station even though he had been Mirandized before giving his statement saying that he does smoke marijuana occasionally.
The only witness brought to the stand was the police officer. The officer was questioned and then cross-examined. Both the prosecution and the defendant brought forward case law to the judge. The item that the defendant’s lawyer kept using was the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. This is commonly used in cases where evidence was seized illegally. It is saying that the tree was poisonous (evidence was obtained illegally) and the confession they later received was the “fruit” of that illegal evidence. Without that illegal evidence, the defendant would never have confessed.
The defendant’s lawyer would occasionally laugh while speaking and would not finish his sentences. This may be indicative of nervousness. He struggled to figure out what to do next many times, which was indicated by his backtracking and his constant use of “um.” The prosecuting lawyer never made eye contact with anyone including the judge and witness. Even during the ruling, she was looking at her notepad and writing. This behavior may indicate that she had already decided that they would most likely lose. She was not relaying any body language that showed she was trying to argue effectively. She may have, either consciously or unconsciously, predetermined that the defendant would win this particular case.
It was interesting that from the officer’s entrance of the trailer that they were able to exclude so much evidence. Initially, it would have been a clear-cut case because they had evidence and the defendant had confessed. However, this case means all of that must be excluded. The prosecution will have to determine a new route for trying to obtain a guilty charge for the defendant.
The entire time I was there, my friend and myself were the only two individuals in the gallery. The entire trial actually lasted only 35 minutes. We had initially picked a different courtroom to enter. However, the lawyer for the defendants came in and told us that we should probably pick a different one because he was figuring his defendants wouldn’t show up. I thought it was interesting and kind of humorous that he had that opinion. The most surprising thing for myself was that there were trials going on in each courtroom all day long.
It was difficult to pinpoint very many observable psychological aspects since most of the case was discussing technicalities. Cognitive psychology was playing into the acts of the lawyers and judge. The most distinguished element of psychology was memory. The police officer was the sole witness in the case and he was asked to recall details from the day of the crime. The crime occurred back in August. When he observed the scene he was encoding and storing the information. However, he was showing signs of having difficulty in retrieving the information. He kept saying “um,” would look towards the ceiling like many individuals do when trying to recall information, and he would flip through his report of the incident to look for the information. All of these indicate that the memory trace, biochemical evidence of the memory, has decreased. Memory trace may decrease over time and there were two months between the actual arrest and his involvement in the trial. The witness also used visual sensation and perception to observe the scene and process that what he was observing was in fact illegal.
As a whole, the trail was fascinating. It was interesting to compare the events of the trial to the dramatized trials that are portrayed on television. It was surprisingly similar besides the poor public speaking displayed by the attorneys.
Terms Used: Trial, Defendant, Attorney, Motion to Suppress, Motion, Prosecution, Witness, Judge, Paraphernalia, Fourth Amendment, Search Warrant, Evidence, Probable Cause, Mirandized, Cross-Examined, Case Law, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, Cognitive Psychology, Memory, Encoding, Storing, Retrieving, Memory Trace, Sensation, Perception
I visited the Black Hawk County Courthouse on Wednesday, October 24th. I proceeded to watch Judge Callahan deal with domestic violence cases because of the no contact order that was in place. I was there for about 45 minutes to an hour and I saw two male victims and one female victim come to try to get their no contact order lifted. It was interesting because two of the victims were males, which is against the stereotype. Whenever I think of domestic violence, most of the time I think of the victim being a female but that just shows to females do become physical as well.
As we were waiting for people to come in and talk to the judge about their case, Judge Callahan gave us his view on domestic violence cases. He said that he always lifts the no contact order because most of the time there are many financial reasons it needs to be lifted. In most cases, the couple has children together and they can’t afford to live in separate households. Another problem is that they won’t have anyone to watch their kids while they go to work and then they have to miss work. Judge Callahan also spoke about how when people want to see each other they usually find a way to do so and if they got caught seeing each other than they will be arrested and put in jail. He thinks it’s better for both parties to be separated for a little while and then let them work everything out.
Before Judge Callahan lifts the no contact order he requires then to go to the “Seeds of Hope” for a counseling session with a counselor. They bring in a signed piece of paper from a counselor that proves they've been there and then he lifts the no contact order. Once the judge lifts the order, the couple still cannot immediately see each other. They have to wait for a piece of paper to come in the mail so that it has time to be processed through the system. The reason for this is because once the judge removes the order he’s the only one that knows it no other exists. The police won’t be notified until it is processed. The judge said one time they kept track of all the domestic violence cases for a three week period to see how many people would lift the no contact order. He said that 12 of the 13 people came back to get the order removed. That is an extremely high number and that’s one of the reasons he always removes the no contact order to the victims if they want it.
Although Judge Callahan said he removes the no contact orders he deals with, that’s not the case with every judge. However, if one judge doesn't remove the order you can always see a different judge on a different day, it cannot be the same day that you've already seen one judge.
An aspect of psychology that was presented in the court room that I saw was social psychology because it was interesting to watch how the judge and the victim interacted. I liked how Judge Callahan treated everyone fairly and never questioned why these victims wanted to get the order removed. I also believe cognitive psychology was present because the victims concentrated on everything the judge said to them. This whole situation was really interesting to watch and I learned a lot just by watching everything that was going on. However, the time that I went, I never really got to see the judge and attorneys interact. Like I stated earlier, I did learn a lot, it just wasn't what I expected to see.
Terms: Judge, defendant, prosecution, attorney, social psychology, cognitive psychology, case, victim
I visited one of the criminal courtrooms in Linn County District Court on October 25, 2012. I observed a bond reduction hearing, a sentencing, a guilty plea and sentencing, a restitution hearing.
At the bond reduction hearing, the defendant and two others had been brought into the courtroom in jail clothes and sat in the jury box while they waited for their case. The judge came into the courtroom and the court reporter told us all to rise, and everybody in the courtroom stood out of respect. The defendant was seated at counsel table with his attorney, my brother,Tyler, and the prosecutor was diagonally across the tables. Tyler made an argument why his client should be allowed to post bond, in accordance with a deal with the prosecutor. The interaction was professional and respectful among the attorneys and the judge. The defendant was on probation when he was charged with possession of a firearm and of marijuana. The defendant did not talk to the judge, but Tyler explained his situation regarding the defendant's lack of money for the bond. This judge was formal, and the attorneys were professional. The defendant did not seem to be especially nervous or emotional. Everybody seemed to know what the outcome would be, that bond would be reduced so that the defendant could be released from jail.
In another courtroom, with a different judge, I observed a guilty plea and sentencing. He had been released on the charge and came to court, although Tyler had been worried that his client might not appear in court. The defendant wore street clothes and had a tattoo on the back of his head. This judge was less formal and came into court with a cup of coffee. He is a very good judge according to everyone I met, and was fair and straightforward with everybody in the courtroom. The defendant changed his plea to guilty to theft after the judge talked to him about the rights he was giving up, like the right to a jury trial, to confront the witnesses against him, The defendant told the judge he understood his rights, when he was asked and then told the judge that he was guilty of the crime. The victim was also in the courtroom and the judge allowed him to say that he did not think the defendant was really sorry. He said the defendant had failed to disclose the other participants, and the location of the stolen property. The victim wanted to be paid restitution for the value of his lost property. The defendant was ordered to pay $2,000 to the victim. Tyler argued for probation, rather than prison, for this client because it was his first theft offense. The judge gave the defendant two years probation and suspended the fine so that the defendant could pay the restitution "as quickly as possible". The judge made this proceeding as comfortable as possible for all the participants. Before the proceeding began, off the record, the defense counsel, the prosecutor and the judge were friendly and conversational with each other. As soon as the official proceeding began, everybody became immediately professional and followed the rules, as far as I could see. The defendant in this proceeding was fairly indifferent but did seem to be grateful.
Terms: bond hearing, restitution, defendant, prosecutor, defense counsel, rights, guilty plea, sentencing, judge, probation, suspended fine.
I went to the Black Hawk County Court House on Wednesday, October 24th and stayed there for about an hour. While there, I witnessed several different domestic abuse cases. Judge Callahan was the judge proceeding over the trials. Many of the people coming to court wanted the "no contact order" lifted. This was mostly due to financial reasons. I found this really surprising. At first I thought, why would they want that lifted? Typically when I think of domestic abuse, I think of one person as being physically, psychologically, or sexually abused. So it was news to me when I heard that they wanted the ban lifted. It makes sense though now that I think about it. If the family is already experiencing low finances, then it will be much harder for them to earn an income on their own and be able to support themselves doing so. Also, many of the families have children that need to be looked after. Having the no contact order lifted, the parents will both still be able to look after their child or children.
I found it interesting that Judge Callahan required the parents to see counseling services. Proof that they've been there comes from a signature by the counselor. Usually if Judge Callahan sees that they've been and that they are getting help, he will lift the order. I just wonder how much the counseling actually helps and what the relapse rate is for abuse happening again.
In this case, I can see where psychology comes in to play. The parents need to be emotionally stable in order to take care of their children. They also need to take the necessary steps to ensure that abuse won't happen again. The children are probably affected the most. For one, they could have witnessed the abuse going on before the trial. That in and of itself can cause psychological damages, leading the child to think that it was his or her fault. On the other hand, if the parents are able to work it out in counseling, the child could reap the benefits from that.
Judge Callahan was also very empathetic towards victims. I liked the fact that he requires counseling services before the couple can be together again. Again, I probably never would have known this was even possible had I not visited. I originally thought that it was one way or the other with no middle ground. It seems to be a good strategy, though, given that parents mental health is extremely important in the family setting. This way Judge Callahan can ensure that he is making a fair judgement for the victim and his/her family.
Overall, I found this court visit to be extremely interesting. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and I was able to see how courts work on a day to day basis.
terms used: physical abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse, no contact order, victim, counselor, mental health.
On Tuesday, October 23rd, I went to the Black Hawk County courthouse around 1:30 p.m. There were two trials that I could sit in on, and both were domestic abuse charges. I decided to sit in on the hearing that was about to start so that I could see the opening arguments. This case in particular was the State of Iowa vs. Shana D. Holmes. Holmes was being charged with Domestic abuse causing bodily injury against victim, Leonard Haynes.
When we walked into the courtroom, the court reporter greeted us with a warm smile and gave us a brief overview of the case at hand. Judge Jeffrey Harris entered the room shortly after and we were introduced. The court reporter and judge exchanged a few sentences regarding the fact that the victim, Leonard Haynes was showing obvious signs that he did not want to be there. This was very obvious when he gave his testimony. Next, the court attendant opened the door and announced the jury. One by one, the jury walked in and sat in their designated area. The demographic of the jury stood out to me right away. The jury was made up of mostly older white men. Considering that the defendant was an African-American female, I couldn’t help but wonder if that would influence the jury’s decision. Shana Holmes, the defendant, pleaded not guilty.
Representing the State was prosecutor Shana Schwake. She gave her opening statements to the jury, briefly describing what had happened on the day of the assault, June 22, 2012. She called her first witness, Leonard Haynes, and he was sworn in. Leonard Haynes and Shana Holmes had been in a relationship from 2005-2012. During this time, they had a daughter together, Naima Haynes. They’re relationship had been a bit rocky, so in January 2012, the couple split up. On this day in particular, Haynes had stayed overnight at Holmes’ house. He woke up to Holmes angrily yelling at him to ‘get out’. Haynes stated on multiple occasions that he was simply trying to calm the situation down when Holmes called the police. It is important to note that Naima was present throughout all of this arguing. Holmes claims to not know what they were even arguing about besides the fact that she wanted him out of her house. After she called the police, the fight intensified and moved outside. Haynes claimed that Holmes stormed out of the house, thus breaking the glass on the screen door. He reiterated that he was still trying to calm the situation down and never put his hands on her, but she was too mad and never calmed down. Haynes stated that he remembers objects being thrown, including a piece of glass, but that it was never at him directly and he wasn’t sure how he got cut. When officers arrived, they questioned Haynes but Holmes went into the house and locked the door. That is when it was established that he had been cut to the point of laceration, and an ambulance was called. Haynes requested to get his keys so that he could leave as she requested. However, during this time, Holmes had taken Haynes’ keys that were inside of the house and left of out of the back door, taking Haynes’ car and Naima with her. After examining evidence on behalf of the state, as well as a quick cross-examination through the defense, Haynes was asked to step down.
Leonard Haynes was very visibly upset throughout the course of his questioning. He kept using his hands to rub his head and his mouth, and he was very fidgety. The judge asked him on multiple occasions to take his hand away from his mouth because it was making him difficult to be understood by the people in the courtroom. He had trouble fighting back tears when asked certain questions pertaining to his relationship with the defendant. He repeated himself multiple times as he stated that he was raised to be a family man, and just wanted what was best for his familasked certain questions pertaining to his relationship with the defendant. He repeated himself multiple times as he stated that he was raised to be a family man, and just wanted what was best for his family. He also made it clear that he didn’t want to press charges and wanted the No Contact Order dropped. He wanted it all to go away so that they could raise their child together. He also had a hard time remembering times and dates, as well as specific occurrences from those dates. I caught that his story changed a few times throughout the course of his testimony, which the defense questioned him on during his cross-examination.
In terms of psychology, it was a very emotional trial. Not only could you visibly see how upset and nervous the witness was getting on stand, but the defendant’s body language also appeared remorseful. She was hunched over and shook her head at times. With that, the difficulty that the defendant had regarding memory recall is noteworthy, because he was going through a somewhat traumatic time. The incident was only four months ago, so his perception may have been skewed due to the amount of stress that he was in at the time. Moreover, Haynes referred to his cut as ‘small’ and ‘not a big deal’, which could have influenced the jury’s decision. Clearly he was injured to the point that the officer called an ambulance, but sensation and perception under stressors can easily explain why he described it that way. Bias could have had an influence on the final verdict, whatever that turned out to be.
This case was very interesting and not what I expected when I first learned of the charges. I wish that I would have been able to stay for the entire thing. I would have liked to see what the defendant had to say regarding the entire case, but particularly why she was so upset the morning in question. Along with the defendant’s testimony, I would have liked to see what the verdict of the jury was regarding the case as well. Throughout the parts of the trial that I saw, I wondered why the State didn’t press charges regarding child endangerment. The cut on Haynes’ arm could have easily been on Naima’s, for she was present with either one of parents at all times throughout the incident.
Terms: assault, domestic abuse, bodily injury, defense, prosecution, witness, eye witness memory, memory recall, victim, defendant, jury, trial, hearing, perception, sensation, emotion.
I have never been inside a Courthouse before so when I entered The Black Hawk County Courthouse on Tuesday, October 23 around 1:00 p.m. I was excited yet nervous as well. When first going through the metal detectors, I had completely forgotten about my jewelry, but the security guards were kind enough to direct me and told me I did not need to remove everything. After feeling slightly embarrassed, I went into the Court Admissions office and they directed me to a case that was the State of Iowa v. perpetrator Shanda D. Holmes.
When I entered the court room, I snuck into the back and was surprised no one came up to me and introduced myself. The first thing I noticed was how plain and somewhat small the court room was (after watching movies like Primal Fear and A Time to Kill I suppose I set my expectations a little too high). I had also noticed the judge talking to another student, but regrettably did not introduce myself. The victim, Leonard Hayes, was a few minutes late arriving to the court room. Hayes is Holme’s boyfriend and father of her daughter. When he entered, there was slight tension and an emotional haze that lingered over the court room when watching the body language between Ms. Holmes and Mr. Hayes. Holmes pleaded not guilty to her charges of causing bodily injury to Hayes. It was noted that when police had arrived on the scene after receiving a phone call from Holmes, Holmes had already left before being questioned with their daughter. The police had noticed broken glass, disassembled screen door, and a cut on Hayes’s arm (which he claimed was not a big deal).
Throughout the direct examination, Hayes could not remember the start of his and Holmes’s argument as well as forgetting how he was cut. When being questioned, he was highly emotional, repeatedly fidgeted, slightly stuttered and answered questions hesitantly, was asked a few times by the judge to remove his hands from his mouth so everyone could understand his answers. Hayes seemed to defend himself of not wanting to press charges of Holmes by repeating that he was raised to be a family man and to keep his family together. I was not able to stay very long and left briefly after hearing this.
Developmental Psychology: Hayes displayed that he was raised as a family man which most likely caused him to become emotional in court and grow into a man who is willing to work things out between him and his intimate partner.
Social Psychology: Since Hayes was raised this way, he responded nervous and emotional in court as well as awkwardly forgetting that the judge had asked him several times to remove his hands away from his mouth.
Behavioral Psychology: I could tell that Hayes was nervous and had definitely felt uncomfortable about Holmes being charged with assault and domestic abuse on him by fidgeting throughout his examination as well as being ‘teary-eyed’, stuttering his words, and keeping his hands by his mouth.
Cognitive Psychology: Hayes could not recall the start of their argument or how he was cut. It was noted that the cops had called an ambulance for Hayes’s injury, making it obvious that his injury must have been worse than he remembered. It’s a possibility that since the incident took place four months ago and was a highly stressful situation that it had hindered Hayes’s perception of what had cut him and his sensation of how bad his cut actually was.
Terms: assault, domestic abuse, perpetrator, victim, memory recall, emotion, direct examination, developmental-social-behavioral-and cognitive psychology
October 30th I visited the Black Hawk County courthouse at 3:00 P.M. I sat in on the sentencing of Mr. Stewart (his first name was not mentioned). When I first entered the court, Mr. Stewart was sitting toward the front by himself. At the table next to him was the prosecution and the judge was of course sitting above them. When I entered, the judge questioned who I was and why I was there. After I had explained my reasoning he then explained to me that it was my right as well as any citizen’s to attend these types of trials. He then proceeded to inform me what was to occur during the 30 minute session.
Mr. Stewart was being charged with 1st degree harassment, assault with intent of injury, and was in violation of the no contact order. The prosecution attorney brought up chapter 664A 7 which is the enforcement of protective orders. 664A 6 and 7 states that a person who is convicted of or held in contempt for a violation of a protective order referred to in section 664A.2 may be ordered by the court to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees and court costs .The person shall be confined in the county jail for a minimum of seven days. The defense lawyer brought up the fact that the victim was willing riding in Mr. Stewart’s car despite the no contact order. The couple also had a 3 month old child in which Mr. Stewart wished to see. With these facts the judge proceeded with a determinate sentencing. This type of approach punished Mr. Stewart with the mandatory sentence of seven days in jail and with the payment of attorney and court costs.
The proceeding lasted only 30 minutes and Mr. Stewart was free to go. Mr. Stewart’s sentence is hoped to accomplish two goals of imprisonment. The first is deterrence which is the hope that the experience of jail will dissuade him from committing further crimes. The second goal is general deterrence which is the hope that other people will choose not to commit the crimes due to fear of jail time. If Mr. Stewart does not learn his lesson however, our book describes a three- strike law. This requires that criminals receive a long or life time sentence when they are convicted of a third felony. Hopefully the goals of imprisonment are obtained, Mr. Stewart learns his lesson, and he does not commit the crimes again.
My impression of the court was that it was less formal than I had expected. People were allowed to enter and leave as they pleased. The sentencing process in general was discussed as if the attorneys and the judge were working as a team instead of being competitive as viewed on T.V. Some of the terminology was difficult to follow considering I am not a lawyer but it was a very interesting experience.
Once the sentencing was over, the prosecution attorney approached me to discuss the case. He asked about my impressions of the case and I told him it was interesting to see in real life because it was more realistic and civil. We discussed the difference between real court cases and the ones shown on T.V. He told me that he knows nearly all of the attorneys in the building and that they are all good friends. The attorney discussed how they work more willingly with each other than most people would expect. The attorney then provided me an example, “If I were to do something undesirable to another attorney, that attorney will most likely keep that in mind. Then in a future case the attorney may return the unwanted favor.” The attorney then asked about my major. When I informed him that it was psychology, he began to discuss the case prior to Mr. Stewart’s. The defendant in the case was being charged with domestic abuse against a female victim. He described that the man had attempted to strangle the victim and trace evidence of blood had been found. The attorney stated that the defendant’s insanity was being questioned. The court will then hire an expert psychologist to assess the defendant and testify in court.
Although I learned a lot from the case I attended, if I could go back I would definitely sit in on the domestic abuse case. The case sounded very intriguing and after learning about the insanity defense, I would like to see it firsthand. Overall the court visit was not entirely what I expected which is what made it more interesting. I have never attended a court case before and the process was much different than what is seen on movies or T.V. shows.
Terms: Judge, prosecution, attorney, victim, 1st degree harassment, assault with intent of injury, no contact order, determinate sentencing, jail, deterrence, general deterrence, defendant, trace evidence, sanity, testify, psychologist, expert, domestic abuse, three-strike laws, conviction
For my court visit I went to the Sixth Judicial District Court in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Friday afternoon. I stayed there between 45 minutes and an hour, and I was able to sit in on a couple of traffic court hearings.
When I first went in, I was surprised because everyone had to go through clearance before they were allowed into the courtroom. I had to go through a metal detector and I was told that I could not take my cell phone or my camera inside. After that, I entered the courtroom and saw that there were literally only a handful of people there along with me. I sat down in the back of the room in the gallery area and proceeded to watch and listen.
The first thing I noticed was that there was not a jury, and I figured that this was probably because these were minor traffic offenses and that they would not need a jury to deliberate on whether or not someone was guilty. I also learned that the defendants had to plead their case to a magistrate rather than a judge, which is someone who conducts a court that deals with minor offenses. I sat in the courtroom and was able to hear a couple of cases on traffic violation. The first case had to do with speeding and the second one had to do with running a stop sign. Neither of the defendants chose to be represented by legal counsel, which meant that they had no legal advice and were contesting the charges by themselves. Both of them plead not guilty to their charges.
After hearing the defendants plead their cases and tell the court why they should not have been ticketed in the first place, the magistrate would then make a ruling to decide whether they were found guilty or not. Although both of the defendants were pleading their innocence, the one who was fighting their ticket for running a stop sign was found guilty. Apparently the maximum fine for court costs and the tickets in question is $500, but this guy got lucky and was told that he only had to pay for his traffic ticket. This was because this was his very first offense, so the magistrate let him off easy. The other man who was pleading his innocence for the speeding ticket was found not guilty and was able to walk away without having to pay any type of fee.
This was not the first time that I had the opportunity to sit in on a court proceeding, but it had definitely been a long time since the last time that I did. It really wasn’t all that interesting just because of the fact that I was sitting in on traffic hearings. I would have much rather been able to sit in on an important criminal case, but oh well!
Aside from the basic functions of the courtroom, I was also able to pick up on different aspects of psychology that were in action during the trials. For instance, something that seemed to play a large role in both cases was emotion. Both of the defendants were pleading their innocence because they truly believed that they were not guilty for their traffic offenses. I would even say that the one guy who ran the stop sign appeared to be very angry and upset, especially when he was found guilty. He seemed to be a little less mad when he was told that he would only have to pay for his ticket, but stress and tension were still somewhat obvious. I also witnessed relief and happiness from the guy who was found not guilty. I would be happy too if I were able to leave knowing that I won my case and that I wouldn’t have to pay any type of fine relating to the supposed traffic offense and the trial.
Another psychological aspect that I noticed during the proceedings was that of cognition, which entails acquiring knowledge, including perception, intuition, and reasoning. This is all under the umbrella of cognitive psychology. This could be seen in the hearings when the magistrate had to listen to the information presented by the defendants and then decided what to do with it based off of their intuition, reasoning, and background knowledge. It was a mental process that the magistrate had to go through for each ruling. Cognition could also be seen when the defendants plead their cases and described to the court why they should not be found guilty for their offenses.
A final psychological component that played a role in the courtroom was social psychology, which is the branch of psychology that deals with social interactions. It was obvious that the magistrate held all of the power and therefore seemed to be very confident coming into both cases. The defendants, on the other hand, both seemed a bit nervous and anxious because of the fact that they had to plead their own cases and make the magistrate see that they are innocent. Everyone spoke respectfully, but the environment was not exactly what you would call friendly.
All in all, this was a great experience and a very interesting assignment. Sitting in on hearings is something that I could see myself doing more often in the future just to gain some insight and knowledge in the world of law. I am excited to discuss everyone’s court visits and class to hear what other people experienced!
Terms: court, traffic court hearing, courtroom, gallery, jury, minor offense, defendant, case, magistrate, judge, charges, plea, guilty, ruling, innocence, fine, ticket, trial, emotion, proceeding, cognition, perception, cognitive psychology, social psychology, power
When learning that I was assigned to attend a court hearing, I was initially excited and was wondering what I was going to witness. I went to the Waterloo Court House on October 23, 2012. The defendant on trial was Shana D Holmes, who was being charged with assault domestic abuse causing bodily injury. The event took place on June 22, 2012, and the victim was the defendants’ former fiancé, Leonard Haynes, who fathered her five-year-old child. The trial began at 1:30 pm, and I stayed to hear the first two witnesses, then left at 3pm. Although I did not stay the whole trial, the time I spent observing helped to give me a better understanding of the psychological aspects in the judicial system, and the concepts that we learn about in class.
When I went into the courtroom, I was about twenty minutes early, and I met the court reporter. She informed me about the current trial that was going to begin, and the introduced me to the state representative Shane Schwake. I also met the defense attorney, Thomas Harbaugh, and the court attendant, Diana. It was interesting that she made me feel so welcomed, considering the serious trial she was about to document, and the proceedings that occur in the courtroom.
When the trial began the jury entered the room, who was made up of mostly white, middle aged males. The State Representative, Shana Schwake, began by creating the scenario for the jury on the morning of the assault. She stated that on the morning of June 22, 2012 Haynes awoke to the yelling and fighting of Shana Holmes. Eventually the fight escalades quickly, and the move outside, breaking the glass storm door. When they enter back into the house, the broken glass is on the ground, and a piece of it gets thrown at Haynes. It cuts him, the police arrive and point out that Haynes is cut. While trying to get both sides of the story, Officer Michael Wheaton takes Haynes aside and is able to hear his version. However, Holmes goes back inside, where she locks the door behind her. She flees out of the back door, taking Haynes’ car.
Schwake called her first witness, the victim, Leonard Haynes. She asks him questions about his life, how his relationship with the defendant started, where he lived at in Waterloo, and other questions that set up the history of their relationship. She also asked him questions about that morning, what events took place, and most importantly, whether or not Holmes cut him during their argument. It was interesting hearing how Schwake questioned him, it seemed that she had to ask him some very basic questions, showing that no answers were left up to assumptions or common sense. One of the most important facts that were established during his testimony was that he specifically does not remember getting cut. He stated that the “glass was flying” and he got cut. During his testimony Schwake brings out exhibits a, b, c, d, and e, which include a picture of the house they were in, busted glass from the door, the victim, and his wounds. Towards the end of his testimony, he makes it clear that he is not the one pressing charges, and does not want anything to happen to the defendant.
The cross examination occurred next, and he was questioned by Thomas Harbaugh. He also questions about the morning of the assault, and the events leading up to that argument. Harbaugh emphasizes that the defendant had to go outside to use the neighbor’s phone to call the police, that Haynes would not allow her to use the phone in their own home because he did not see the point of the police coming. Also, he makes the point that although the glass was being flown, it was never thrown directly at Haynes. He stated that Holmes threw the glass out of frustration, not to throw it at the victim.
The next witness was called for the state and it was the officer that arrived that the scene, Officer Michael Wheaton. He was first questioned by Schwake, who asked about his history in the police force, and established him as a credible witness. He admits that the defendant was very upset and would not calm down. He also agrees that the glass was on the ground, and the victim had a cut on his arm. Officer Wheaton says that he only heard Haynes’ version because Holmes left the scene, therefore he could not question her about the assault that occurred. I was not able to hear much of the cross examination of Officer Wheaton, however one point that was interesting, which he established early in his examination, was the tone Holmes used when admitting the she broke the glass to Officer Wheaton. He asked directly if Holmes sounded sarcastic when she stated that, and asked if Officer Wheaton could be sure she was not being sarcastic.
During the trial there were aspects of psychology that was present. Cognitive psychology was present due to the preparation of the defense attorney and the state representative. It was also a part because memory played a large role in the case, considering it occurred roughly four months ago. It included retrieval and storing errors because of the minor differences in stories between those present. Social psychology was also present because of how the lawyers, defendant, witnesses, and jury members behaved in the presence of the judge. It is interesting how much one person, with such a high status in the court system, plays such a major influence in the actions of others. Overall, it was a great experience, and helped to connect the concepts and topics we discuss and class with real life court proceedings.
Terms: courtroom, defense attorney, state representative, defendant, eyewitness, testimony, judge, jury, cross examination, cognitive psychology, social psychology
Today, Monday October 29, I went to the Blackhawk County courthouse and saw three proceedings. The first two were sentencing hearings for alcohol related offenses and the third was a hearing about procuring depositions and an expert witness for a domestic violence case. I spent an hour in the courthouse, most of which was for the third hearing.
The first two cases I saw were sentencing hearings. The first hearing was for an OWI. The guilty party had a previous OWI as well as a possession of meth charge. The prosecutor asked for the defendant to serve 6 days of his one-year jail sentence and have an additional year or two of probation. The defense attorney asked to have the time served reduced to 4 days because her client had a job and could not miss work. The guilty party then declined to say anything on his own behalf. It surprised me how relaxed all parties involved seemed. The defendant was wearing jeans and sweatshirt and was very ragged looking.
The second sentencing was for public intoxication and the guilty party was an underage UNI student. This was the defendant’s second public intox and the judge did not take that likely. The judge requested that the defendant make a statement as to why he should honor the punishment that the two parties had agreed upon. At this point the defendant said he had finally learned his lesson but the judge did not seem content because it was his second incident.
One of the psychological aspects seen would be social psychology. The judge knew how influential he could be in asking his question to the second defendant. The judge was able to make the defendant critically think about what he did and why it wasn’t clear after the first incident, these would be challenging his memory recall and be an example of cognitive psychology.
The third case was State v Larry Sabin. I had initially started in this courtroom and the prosecuting attorney came over and asked who I was, why I was there, etc. He seemed genuinely pleased to have someone there to watch and learn. He was also co-council for the two sentencing hearings. After the sentencing he came over to me and said “Are you going back over to this next one? It could be interesting.” And he was right, the case was much more intriguing.
State v Larry Sabin is a domestic violence case in which the defendant is claiming self-defense. The hearing I saw was pertaining to the defense wish to procure an expert and well as a deposition from the other party involved. This couple had a history of violence including a charge where the woman involved was found guilty of domestic assault. The defense is now requesting to depose her and if necessary acquire an expert to speak about her propensity for violence and aggression. Most of what was discussed had little to do with the psychological reasoning behind acquiring an expert rather how much it would cost. The way it was stated made it sound like the state would be footing the bill for the witness because the Sabin had court appointed council.
Most of the psychological aspects of this case came before the judge even entered the room. While waiting for the state attorney and judge the defendant and was questioned by his lawyer, asked to remember the times that the woman in question had been violent. This required recall dating back about two years up to the present. I feel that this would have been hard for Sabin because of the situation. Stress impacts cognitive recall and manipulation. Prior to the judge arriving the defense and state attorney talked about what they where were going to cover and seemed to be fairly amicable. Once all necessary parties were present the mood seemed to shift. As if the all acknowledge a social order where Sabin and his attorney were on the bottom.
Terms: prosecution, defendant, sentencing, social psych, expert witness, cognitive psych, recall, manipulation
I went to Black Hawk County Courthouse on the morning of October 29th, 2012. I was there at about 11:00 am and stayed until about 11:45 am. They did not have a lot going on that day so I was only able to watch a motion hearing.
In the courtroom, there was only the defense attorney, the prosecuting attorney, the judge, the defendant, his friend, and my friend and I. It was a very small courtroom and I always find it interesting how the courtrooms are usually set up. I like how the judge is high up and can see everything and how there is a barrier splitting the attorneys and the judge from the rest of us. I feel like that really establishes a sense of where the power is coming from in the room, which is clearly the judge.
This particular hearing was supposed to start at 11:30 but the prosecuting attorney had to make a phone call so it was held back a couple minutes. I thought this was interesting because when the judge finally came into the courtroom, he did not seem happy about this. I feel like you would not want to make a judge unhappy before you started a trial, or motion hearing in this case. Also, he entered from the back where everyone else comes in, instead of from the back like people always see in movies. Also before the hearing started, the attorneys were making small talk with each other and with the client. I thought this was interesting because both of them being in the same district, the two attorneys must have known each other and maybe even be friends but in the courtroom they are both hoping the other loses.
Finally the hearing started. The client’s name was Tyler, although I do not remember his last name as it was not said very often. He was mainly referred to as a client by his attorney. Tyler was trying to get a motion to pass so that he could get work release for the amount of time he was sentenced. Tyler was sentenced to 14 days in jail because he pleaded guilty to stealing another juror’s wallet and money while on jury duty.
To start off, the prosecutor stated why he felt that Tyler should not get work release. Then, Tyler’s attorney stated why he felt that Tyler should get work release. It was stated that Tyler had a good job at Tyson factory for about a year and a half now and did not want to lose that job because he could not legally work for two weeks. After hearing what both attorneys said, the judge wanted to hear from Tyler himself. I found it very interesting that when Tyler started talking, the judge made sure to point out that he should be standing up; because Tyler was still sitting down at that time. This just goes to show more of the respect aspect that the judges demand in their courtroom.
The judge asked Tyler a lot of questions about his job and why he did what he did. The judge’s personality showed that he was not about to put up with any lies or bullshit from Tyler. Turns out that Tyler had a past record of thefts throughout different Iowa counties. But he told the judge that he had developed to appreciate where he was now and the life that he had. This brings to question the developmental psychology behind Tyler and if his social changes had affected his personality. Also, Tyler brought into play an aspect of clinical psychology, stating that he was a paranoid schizophrenic and he stole the money because of his mental illness.
Tyler also did not have good body posture for the hearing. This then sent the wrong message to the judge that may have perceived this as Tyler not caring. He was often leaning back in his seat or hunched over. While he was standing, Tyler was fidgeting a lot, making him seem nervous and unsure. Tyler did have an okay choice in clothing though. He was not wearing a suit but he was also not in prison wear so he seemed like an average citizen. Overall, I feel like he could have presented himself a little bit better.
Tyler also changed his story a bit during the hearing. The judge asked Tyler why he stole the money and Tyler said that he did not do it. Tyler stated that there were no witnesses to see him commit this crime and this statement seemed to be truthful. But what didn’t make sense to the judge or myself, then, was why Tyler pleaded guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. Tyler tried using cognitive psychology to manipulate and convince the judge that he was a good man and deserved to be given work release. I’m not sure how well that worked out for him because I was not able to see the final decision of the judge. I was happy with the motion hearing I got to see though and found the whole experience pretty exciting and interesting.
Terms: motion hearing, defense, prosecuting, judge, attorney, defendant, client, work release, jury duty, courtroom, personality, developmental psychology, clinical psychology, perception, witnesses, cognitive psychology
On September 18, 2012, I visited the Davenport Court House in Scott County with my father, Donald Grissom. He is a claims adjuster for State Farm Insurance and he was the representative for this case. I visited the court house on the second day of this three day trial.
Allison Cavallo, on June 9th of 2010, was rear ended by Zach Ortiez at an intersection in Davenport, Iowa. Allison Cavallo was following her boyfriend when she began to turn left and was hit in the back of her car by Zach Ortiez. There was a large amount of damage done to both Allison and Zach’s vehicles. Zach Ortiez was uninsured and was driving his father’s car at the time. Allison Cavallo, after the incident occurred, went to the hospital to ensure she was not injured from the crash. She also claimed she began feeling stiff from the incident. Allison later was seen by a doctor due to neck/ back pains and headaches resulting from the accident. The doctor cleared Allison after a couple of months, stating in her reports that Allison’s headaches and pain seemed to have subsided. In June of 2012, after Allison had hired her attorney, she began complaining of neck pain and headaches again. State Farm paid for Allison Cavallo’s car damages; however, she sued State Farm for her medical expenses, pain and suffering and lost wages. State Farm tried to settle before the case went to trial, claiming they would pay roughly $10,000 in compensation. Allison Cavallo declined this offer and decided to stand trial asking for $75,000 in compensation.
My father and I arrived at the court house around 8:45 in the morning. The judge nicely acknowledged me and seemed happy that there was a college student observing in her court room. The defense attorney was Scott McDonald with my father as the State Farm representative. The prosecutor was William Bribriesco, who was also accompanied by his son. Before the trial officially began, the prosecutor objected to some of the defense’s witness testimony and terminology used by defense to describe the plaintiff. The prosecutor, William Bribriesco objected part of both Zach Ortiez and Robert Ortiez’s testimony (recorded testimony) claiming that they were giving medical opinions of Allison’s condition at the scene and neither are doctors. This motion was granted and parts of both testimonies where medical opinion was injected was omitted. William Bribriesco also claimed that the defense attorney, Scott McDonald, was depicting Allison Cavallo as a malingerer and wanted the word malingerer omitted from any piece of evidence or testimony. This motion was also granted because the judge felt the word would cause confusion amongst the jurors and Scott McDonald did not feel that it was a necessary part of his case either. While Bribriesco was making objections he was appealing to the judge’s ego by complimenting her on decisions she made. He was using his charismatic personality and flattery to get his way.
Court was officially in session at around 10 a.m., and there were 9 jurors for this case. The trial began with the prosecution calling witnesses and their first witness was Officer Barry Peiffer, the responding officer. The officer’s testimony was used by the prosecution as a way to depict the severity of the car accident and the injuries that could arise from a bad accident. However, when cross-examined the defense attorney discussed the coding which officers used to describe the status of a person after a car accident. Officer Barry Peiffer coded the injuries of Allison Cavallo as a 5, which translates to uninjured. A code 4 means that there is a possible injury, this means that the responding officer believed, according to his professional opinion, that Allison Cavallo after the incident seemed healthy and uninjured. I felt, however, that the officer was not a credible witness due to the fact that he could not seem to get his facts straight on simple questions such as if there was a stop light at the intersection where the car accident occurred. The second witness that the prosecution called to the stand was Allison Cavallo’s boss at the time and the manager of Los Amigos, a restaurant in Davenport. This witness was used to provide insight on Allison’s character to establish that she is a trustworthy and responsible person. I felt that Allison’s boss was ineffective as a witness because he did not have much to add to the case and the jury did not seem to respond to the testimony. The next two witnesses were Robert and Zach Ortiez who had pre-recorded testimonies which were also very ineffective. The testimonies only established that Zach Ortiez was at fault for the accident, a fact which State Farm had already acknowledged and had paid for the car damages that were a result of the accident. The fifth witness the prosecution called to the stand was Sharon Cavallo, Allison’s mother. The direct questioning began by William Bribriesco pointing out the fact that he was legally blind and had a hard time seeing so the jurors needed to be patient with him. This was a tactic that Bribriesco utilized many times during the trial to receive empathy from the jurors. Sharon Cavallo was then questioned about the impact that the accident had on her daughter’s life. Sharon Cavallo claimed that Allison enjoyed going to movies and swimming which now she could not do because of the pain from the accident. The mother did not have much of an impact on the case either. Her testimony basically discussed how Allison slept a lot after the accident and that her daughter could not go to movies or go swimming. Scott McDonald chose to cross-examine Sharon in order to point out the fact that both Allison and Sharon had run the Bix, a 7 mile road race in Davenport, IA, during that previous summer. He also congratulated Sharon on finishing in the top third of her age group and then added that Allison must of ran fast to beat her. I felt that Scott’s cross-examination was subtle and polite yet provided jurors with evidence that Allison Cavallo was well enough to run an extreme race and run it well. Before lunch, the prosecution called Allison Cavallo to the stand. Her testimony began with describing her previous medical records including her anxiety that she had been dealing with for several years, which has symptoms including headaches. During the questioning of Allison, Bribriesco used key trigger words such as crashed and smashed to describe the accident. From psychology research I know that using words such as crashed or smashed versus hit make an accident seem more severe and depict the cars as going a fast rate.
During Allison’s testimony we had a break for lunch, where I had the privilege of eating lunch with Scott McDonald, the defense attorney. It was an awesome experience because he asked my opinion on the different witnesses and my observations of the jury. I also found it fascinating because I got to have an insight on his tactics as a defense attorney. Scott told me that for the previous witnesses he did not use intimidation or fast paced questioning during his cross examination because he felt that it was not necessary to his case and could become a negative and make the jury feels as though he was being a bully. Scott also told me that open statements were the most important part of a trial because jurors made their opinions at that moment and then used the evidence provided to support their already made decision. This is an example of confirmation bias, in which jurors are using evidence and testimony to support their already decided verdict.
After lunch, the prosecution was allowed to stop Allison’s testimony and question their expert witness due to his time restraints. Dr. Robert Milas, a neurosurgeon, I believe had the greatest impact on the jury’s verdict decision. Dr. Milas had a consultation with Allison Cavallo at the request of William Bribriesco. The questioning of Dr. Milas began with inquiries about his educational and professional background to show jurors that he was a credible witness. During his testimony Dr. Milas used a spine prop to demonstrate the different areas that were causing Allison Cavallo discomfort. Dr. Milas described how the accident could have affected the neck/back area and how that strain could have caused the headaches. The terminology he used seemed to confuse the jurors and in some cases caused them to fall asleep. However, during the cross-examination of Dr. Milas everyone was wide awake. Scott McDonald used fast paced questioning and wit to overpower Dr. Milas and make him seem not credible as an expert. Scott questioned Dr. Milas about the fact that he had worked for William Bribriesco for many years and was a consultant on several cases. He also questioned Dr. Milas about his education and certification and the fact that he is not a board member of the American Disabilities Board and that he is a neurosurgeon not a neurologist. Scott also brought up the fact that Dr. Milas’ notes over his consultation with Allison consisted of two unreadable statements. Scott took the piece of paper the notes were written on and flung it around to show jurors that the notes were insignificant and that the doctor could not find anything wrong with Allison to write about. During cross-examination Scott McDonald made Dr. Milas seem as though he did not know what he was talking about and discredited him as an expert witness. This relates to our recent discussion of expert witnesses and how they can have a negative impact on a case, which is what I believe occurred during this trial. William Bribriesco then recalled Allison Cavallo to the stand. In his second set of questions, Bribriesco kept using the phrase “devil’s advocate” and if trying to beat the defense to obvious questions. Bribriesco used this as a psychological tactic to show jurors that the defense was predictable and that there were reasonable justifications for these issues. Allison Cavallo’s second time on the stand was focused on her life after the accident and how her life was drastically changed. Allison Cavallo testified that her headaches were preventing her from doing the things she enjoyed during her daily life. I felt as though Allison Cavallo was playing the victim card and needed money to pay for her bills including her schooling cost for the several colleges she had attended.
The second day of court ended around 4:30 p.m. after Allison Cavallo’s questioning. The next day a verdict was reached in which Allison Cavallo was awarded roughly $11,000. The jurors awarded her $268 for past medical expenses, $150 for past lost wages, $6000 for past pain and suffering, $1800 for past loss of function, $432 for future medical cost, $2400 for future pain and suffering and, $0 for future loss of function.
Terms: defense attorney, prosecutor, sued, malingerer, responding officer, cross-examination, anxiety, opening statement, intimidation, confirmation bias, credible witness, expert witness, compensation, pain and suffering
I will not be saying the names of the two people in this blog due to them actually being family.
I had arrived early on the morning of October 1st at 8:30 am since the hearing would not start till the magistrate arrived which could have been anytime so there was no set time it would start. After waiting an hour or so the magistrate finally arrived which then the two people being accused had been brought in from the jail house to hear their charges. Two people, a male and a female, were brought up from the Tama County jail to appear in front of the magistrate court of Tama County. When the two entered the male had velcro around his ankles so he could not get away if he tried to. The female previously had surgery so she is unable to really walk due to a boot and on crutches so there really was no point of putting any restraints on her.
The male appeared first in front of the magistrate so he could be read his rights to proceed with the hearing. The magistrate ruled the charges to be a Class B Felony and theft; for stealing money from an individual’s bank account then using it for his own personal use. After being read his charges he was asked if he understood, which he did, added to the charges there was to be no contact between him and his mother, which the crime was committed on. The magistrate told him he had to report to the Department of Correction which was not explained very well on where he was to go so there was quite a bit of confusion for a few seconds, but the cop who brought the two in pointed them in the right direction.
The male was finally done which led up to the woman’s hearing. Throughout the whole entire hearing, when the man was being charged to even when she stood in front of the magistrate, the woman was very distraught which she cried since she got there. She was offered a chair due to her injury and once she was seated she was also read her rights then asked if she understood. Even though the evidence against the woman was very unclear she was also charged with a Class B Felony and theft. She too was also to have no contact with the man’s mother and was to report to the Department of Corrections. The woman asked what it meant to report to the Department of Corrections which she was told that she would be given a probation officer and to see them every week for the time being. The magistrate asked the woman a question when the hearing was done if she was in school. The woman said, “Yes” which the magistrate told her that’s, “good and stay in school”. To me this question almost seemed like the magistrate was being a little more considerate towards the woman than the man. The woman was then led down stairs, to the same place the man was, so they could be released till their trial in one year.
Terms: Magistrate court, rights, charges, hearing, Class B Felony, theft, stealing, Department of Corrections, confusion, distraught and probation officer
On Monday, October, 29 I sat in on a custody case at the Waterloo Court House. The experience was very refreshing and interesting. After watching so many trial cases for class I enjoyed watching the real thing. I was very surprised by the unprofessionalism that was present in the court house. I suspected there to be people in business casual and very sober. It was more of a laid back environment. The desk clerks seemed very intrigued that we had to sit in on a case. I asked for a trial by jury, but they only happen on Tuesdays. The case we watched was in a small room with only the judge, defendant, prosecution, one lawyer, and the typing professional. My first surprise is that the defendant did not have a lawyer or attorney. She chose to defend herself. The case break down basically was two people had a child together and the father was wanting more rights over the child. I felt somewhat like I was intruding in their life. All facts were brought out in the case. The first fifteen minutes the judge was just going over history off the record. It was somewhat hard for me to follow but then she repeated it all on the record and I caught more of the report. The first thing she stated was that the motion for sanction was granted. The defendant failed to comply with judge issued orders. Therefore, no evidence could be brought to the case and only she can testify. No witnesses can be called otherwise. The case was generalized as custody replacement and child support.The child being discussed is a six year old boy, Jaylen. I did not get to see the entire case, however from what I saw it seemed to be favor of the prosecution.
The father and mother did not have any other relationship other than friendship and few intimate encounters. The father had supplied financial as well as personal needs for the child. He then had gotten into another relationship and the mother was refusing custody rights for the sun. Prior to this case they had not taken any legal procedures for the custody. This case will more then likely end up with some rights being stated in legal form and joint custody will be issued. This case seemed unprofessional on the defendant side and things may have gone differently if she would have gotten a lawyer. I was also noticing how bored the judge seemed. I am assuming these cases get repetitive. I think that this visit helps me see more of the law side of psychology and possibly explore more of my options before picking a graduate program. Law intrigues me and I can see it has the most challenging field, however, repetitive cases like this might make me think twice.
Walking into the court, I went up to the clerk desk and asked the older lady if there were any interesting court proceedings going on. She told me that there was a murder trial in 301. That pretty much settled where I was going, even though it was going to be only jury selection that day. I was cautioned not to say anything, because the jury at that point wasn't aware that it was a murder trial and letting that slip could cause a mistrial. The very first thing that slipped out of my mouth was how proud my professor would be if that happened.
The jury selection was interesting. When I initially entered the big courtroom it was packed with people. I did a cursory estimation and there was about ninety people. I didn't make the connection immediately but when they started calling jury members with numbers as high as 87, I considered the possibility that I was one of the few people in the room who wasn't actually involved in the case.
The other interesting thing that happened was I recognized several of the jurors as members of the various communities I had been a part of over a year. I went to Highschool with three of them and lived not far from another one.
I swore oath with the jury because I didn't want to draw attention to myself in this particular circumstance. In this case, it was advantageous to blend in because the last thin I needed to do was to risk getting thrown out of something so interesting just because I was too lazy to stand up and raise my right hand.
Montez T. Caples, the defendant was accused of murder. The police brought him in on an intent to distribute charge and he allegedly confessed to the murder of Robert Joseph Shannon, age 34. Shannon died of a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. His body was found in a running Hyundai on Poplar street. There are witnesses who saw a heated somewhat private argument between the two, but the details were a little fuzzy on what they actually said.
The original hearing happened late last year, December 14th. Defense was denied the motion to suppress some of what Caples said to the police that day, and because that is allegedly a confession it's going to be a major sticking point for the rest of the trial.
Caples wasn't dressed particularly nice. He was wearing a blue short sleeve button up shirt and didn't even neatly trimmed or maintained facial hair. All in all he could have done better grooming himself for trial. The guy also managed to look smug which probably isn't going to come off well to the jury.
Another issue that is going to be interesting is the long and storied criminal record dating as far back as age eleven for Caples. Despite the fact there's nothing quite on par with an offense as severe as first degree murder it is a good way to color the jury against a defendant.
Couple that with the recent intent to distribute charge which he didn't fight, probably in light of the fact that he was also getting charged with murder. I wonder if there was some cross-over in what Caples admitted guilt, since he didn't fight the drug based charges despite the severity of them. I could see that he might not want to fight a war on two fronts, better to surrender one and focus effort on the one that could really get him some serious time.
I visited the Black Hawk County court on Tuesday, October 23rd around 3:00pm to witness the case of the State vs. William L Johannsen. This case was a bit confusing to figure out, because the defendant kind of switched to the prosecutor and vice versa, due to the cause of the trial. This trial was to suppress the motion of evidence, whereas the first trial was against the defendant due to possession of illegal paraphernalia. In this court room, there was the judge, a legal assistant, the prosecuting attorney (once defendant) and his client (Johannsen), and the defense attorney with a Waterloo police officer.
The reason for this trial was to suppress the motion of evidence of drug paraphernalia because the police officer entered Johannsen's living space without a warrant at first entry.
The landlord called the police after performing maintenance on Johannsen's living quarters and found drug paraphernalia sitting in a box on the kitchen table. Once the officer arrived, the landlord brought them into the trailer to view what they had seen. After viewing this, the officer left to receive a warrant and bring along extra eyes. However, after speaking with the resident, he did not give rights to a search and viewed it as a violation of his 4th Amendment rights that the officer entered his living quarters first without a search warrant. He did not want this evidence used against him, as the procedures were not followed correctly. The outcome was that the judge did seize the motion to suppress the evidence, due to faulty search procedures.
The only witness brought to the stand was the police officer, and he was questioned by his attorney. She asked him to recall the events of that day and conversations that were held. She mentioned the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine, where she tried to prove that although his entry was not correct, he did witness illegal possessions which should basically trump his poor judgement to enter without a search warrant.
The defendant's attorney was very serious, straight-faced, and down to business. She wanted nothing to do with communicating with the prosecuting attorney. It was likely that she knew that this case was a lost cause. She was very curt, even with the judge.
The prosecuting attorney seemed very inexperienced as he trailed into different thoughts, had many um's and eh's, and had nervous laughter throughout the trial. He was lost with what to do next and seemed very nervous.
Psychologically, as the police officer was the only witness, he had to enact in memory to recall past events. However, due to the passing of time, he took longer to recall events, taking pauses to clearly state what happened and what he could recall. Memory is the only thing that this case really called for, so it was very important that he accurately remembered the happenings of this day when he was on the stand as a witness.
Overall, it was an interesting experience. I felt awkward being one of the two attendees. It was interesting to see how this trial was suppressed due to faulty entry, even though he did in fact admit to having this paraphernalia and to doing drugs from time to time.
Terms Used: Trial, Defendant, Attorney, Motion to Suppress, Prosecution, Witness, Judge, Paraphernalia, Fourth Amendment, Search Warrant, Evidence, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, Memory
I visited Black Hawk County Courthouse on the day of Monday the 22nd of October. I actually had to take a friend of mine to court that day in order for him to testify because he is a Waterloo Police Reserve Officer and had been involved in a case at the end of July and the case ended up having to go to court, so it all worked out perfectly since I had to do this assignment for class.
The case was State vs. Leah Marie Fistler. The charges on the sheet I was shown was for False Reports/Communications with Public Entity, but Iowa Courts online states the description as 911 Non-Emergency call. This was my first time ever being at the court house so I was glad I got to go with a current police officer since he knew where he was going. We went and checked in and then asked the lady if it was okay for me to watch the case which she had to make sure first. We then sat in the waiting room with other defendants and other police officers. After a few minutes of waiting two prosecutors ended up coming and talking to me about the case and what exactly was going on and which room we would be entering for the case when the defendant had arrived. The case was scheduled for 1:30 and we had arrived around 1:15. The other police officer that was involved in the case then arrived and we all sat and waiting for her to arrive. It eventually hit around 1:35-1:40 and the defendant still hadn't arrived yet. The prosecutor came up to us and told us that he was going to go and talk to the Judge to see maybe if the defendant had pleaded out so there wouldn't be an actual trial anymore. A few minutes had passed and the prosecutor came back out and told us that she had plead out because she had been worried that this crime was going to go on her record and she was afraid that she wouldn't be able to get a job. The police officer had said that this was the most trouble she's ever gotten into and that she would more than likely not be involved in any other such crime. I thought it was kind of silly how she had been pleaded out previous before the trial and yet they didn't tell the other police officers and they had to show up. There was a few police officers in the waiting room and some of them were talking about how they had been working all night and only got a few hours of sleep and then had to show up to court the next morning even if their defendant didn't show up which I think kind of sucks. One good thing for police officers is that they get paid for coming to court even if nothing happens.
The scenario of the charges were that the defendant locked herself in her car and threatened to drive away even though she was very intoxicated. Her friends who were with her that night called the cops because they didn't want her to drive and have something happen to her. When the cops arrived they tried to talk her getting out of the car which she didn't. The defendant kept calling 911 even though the cops were there because she thought they were laughing at her with her friends. She called 911 quite a few times before the cops ended up talking her out of the car and then she was arrested and spent the night in the jail. I believe she had been fighting with her boyfriend that night which didn't help matters either especially because of how intoxicated she was. I think it was a good thing that this case didn't go to trial because it was something silly that happened and her best bet was to plead out and that is exactly what she did.
terms used; defendant, prosecutor, judge, trial, case, police officer, plead out
I attended a court proceeding on October 30th from 9:00am to 10:30am. During this proceeding, the initial stages of jury selection had just begun. Thirty-eight potential jurors, or members of the venire, were present. These citizens were sworn in simultaneously and then roll-called by the court recorder. Court was then recessed for fifteen minutes to allow the State to review questions submitted by the Defense and vice versa. The judge told attendees that they would be held in contempt of the court if they did not return after the recess.
After the recess, the judge asked attendees if they knew any of the witnesses or the defendant. Additionally, the judge asked all potential jurors if they would suffered and “undue hardships or extreme inconveniences” from serving jury duty. This part of the case is also called the voir dire. Some persons raised their hands and these persons were asked to explain their relationship with the witnesses in the trial. Next, these persons were taken into a separate area one-by-one and were presumably asked more questions to determine if their connections would cause them to be a biased or prejudiced juror. Some persons did not return with the attorneys and judge to the courtroom.
Next, the State began to question individual attendees and small groups of attendees to determine if these persons were biased. She seemed to be referencing information collected via a pre-courtroom assessment that the attendees must have filled out. She was particularly interested in whether persons who had previously served on a jury would be prejudiced against the State. She questioned the persons in a friendly but slightly aggressive manner. She was also interested in what the attending individuals considered to be an “assault.” She asked several persons what they personally defined as assault and asked these individuals if their personal definitions of assault would interfere with their abilities to hold the defendant accountable to the legal definition of assault. Essentially, she was trying to determine which persons would be prejudicial against the State. I had to leave before the Defense had an opportunity to question members of the venire.
Throughout the jury selection process, the attorneys (and also the compulsory attendees) were using psychology consciously or subconsciously to attain their desired outcome. Body language clearly identified which of the attendees did not want to be there and which attendees were indifferent. A guy in a Hawkeye sweatshirt clearly did not want to be there based on his slouched shoulders and jutted chin. The State attorney used social psychology to get persons to loosen up by sympathizing with their desires not to be there and cracking a few light jokes. These jokes softened how her in-depth questioning was received by the attendees. Behavioral psychology was also used to make assumptions of how the citizens would lean once the jury would deliberate. In particularly, a man who had served on a jury for a different assault case was questioned extensively as to which way he had voted for that case. Others who had previously served on juries were also questioned extensively to determine if they would consistently favor the State or Defense. Cognitive psychology also played a role during these proceedings. The State attorney was attuned to how she was perceived by the venire and seemed to want to make a good impression on them. She also was analyzing their answers to determine what their mental processes must be so that she could effectively eliminate persons who would be prejudiced against the State.
Venire, voir dire, State, defendant, contempt, compulsory, jury, body language, bias, prejudice, perceptions, behavioral psychology, social psychology, cognitive psychology, assault, legal vs. personal definitions
For my court visit, I went to the Black Hawk County Courthouse in Waterloo, Iowa. Upon arrival, I was very nervous and intimidated, because I had never been to a court proceeding before and had no idea how to go about it. Once I was able to figure out where to go and what to do, it was very interesting! the The court proceeding that was taking place was the first day of a jury selection in an assault case. The prosecution had alleged that the defendant assaulted a man causing bodily injury. I watched the jury selection process for a total of two hours.
Throughout the portion of the proceeding that I experienced, I saw both the social element, as well as, the personality element of psychology portrayed.
The first element at play in the courtroom was the social element of psychology. The prosecutor begun the proceeding by leading the jurors in questioning. The prosecutor asked jurors questions such as, “What does assault mean to you?,” “Is it ever ok to assault someone?,” “What are direct and circumstantial evidence and should they be weighed the same?,” and “What do you think that reasonable doubt means?.” The questioning of the jurors was done in front of the whole courtroom, which is where the social element came into play. It was clear that a lot of the jurors were answering in regards to another juror’s answers. The jurors were influenced by each other when answering the questions asked of them. The second way that the social element of psychology played a role in the court proceeding, was how the Judge’s authority influenced how everyone acted in the courtroom. The Judge was addressed in a formal fashion, and when the judge spoke everyone listened intently and acted accordingly. Overall, the social role of psychology was very evident within the courtroom among all parties involved.
The second element at play in the courtroom was the element of personality in psychology. This element was important especially to both the prosecution and the defense lawyers in that through the questioning they were able to get a feel for the jurors and their personalities according to how well the juror may work for their case. If either lawyer felt that a juror’s personality did not fit what is expected of a juror and would not allow for a fair and impartial jury, that juror may be dismissed from the case. The prosecutor asked questions regarding how a person thought and what a person was like through questions pertaining to a juror’s backgrounds and experiences in other juries, their professions, and/or situational things such as parenting decisions, etc. The prosecutor definitely felt out each individual juror for their personality and how they think by using leading questions that prompted the juror to explain their reasoning. A second way that the personality element was observed was in how both the defense attorney and the prosecutor carried themselves. It was obvious what kind of attorney they were by the way they greeted the jurors, carried themselves throughout the proceeding, and how they responded to both the judge and the jurors.
Overall, the portion of the proceeding that I saw was fascinating, and taught me a lot about how exactly court proceedings work instead of just reading and hearing about them; although, it did make me leave unsatisfied due to the fact that I wanted to hear more about the case including the evidence. In my opinion, I think it would be interesting to serve on a jury!
This morning (Yeah, I know I procrastinate :/), I went to the Blackhawk County Courthouse to observe a court proceeding and, luckily, was able to watch the jury selection process for the State of Iowa versus Michael Hagen, who has been charged with assault against Kevin Whitburn. When we ( a couple other students and I) first arrived, the judge assumed we were part of the venire, or jury pool, and questioned why we were not swearing the oath with everyone else. That was one of the more awkward parts of the trial.
The entire time I was trying to use the psychological principles of which I was aware to determine how the prosecuting and defending attorneys would select and/or challenge the jurors in the pool.
The voir dire, literally meaning “that which is true” and is used in the United States as the period to question possible jurors, process started with the judge asking if the jurors knew anyone involved in the case, anything about the case, and if the potential jurors had any biases or prejudices towards either the defense or prosecution that would preclude them from being impartial during the trial. Disappointingly, jurors who answered in the affirmative in any of these instances were taken in the judge’s quarters for further questioning, so I was unable to hear what went on.
After this, the prosecuting attorney began her round of questioning for the voir dire. She began by introducing herself and cracking jokes to put the jurors at ease. She then asked if any of them have served as jurors before and what their experience was in that jury. It seemed as if she wanted to ensure that nothing from the prior trial would influence the outcome of this trial. This could be an example of the primacy effect, which is that the first impression of something would carry over. In other words, the prosecuting attorney was trying to gauge the potential’s jurors impressions of trials and of assault. For example, one prior juror may have had a bad experience and hold it against the state or had found the prior defendant not guilty, and as such, may be more inclined to vote that way again. She wanted to be sure that the trials were entirely different so as to not allow any carry over effect from the previous trial.
Another example of the primacy effect could be when the prosecuting attorney asked the jury pool for their definitions of assault. She went on to ask about whether it needed to include physical contact or if you needed to see physical evidence of the assault for it to have happened. She wanted to find out if the jury pool’s original viewpoints could be overrided by presenting the legal definition of assault, which would be an example of the recency effect.
I also thought about other social psychological principles that may affect inclinations to vote, though as the textbook states, the evidence has overwhelmingly the most influence on the verdict, which is very fortunate. For example, intuitively I wondered whether women may be more inclined to sympathize with the victim, as women have been assaulted by men very frequently. However, one example given by the textbook states that some influences affective verdicts may be counterintuitive. For example, during the O.J. Simpson trial it was thought that more women would empathize with his wife, who he was charged with murdering. On the contrary, more of those women voted to acquit O.J. of all charges. There were several reasons given for this: 1) the majority of the women were black, so may have put more emphasis on their racial identity than on their social identity as women, 2) they said they did not understand the DNA allegations, which played a critical role in the prosecution’s case, and 3) empathy does not necessarily correlate with a vote, according to the textbook.
Additionally, the prosecuting attorney asked some questions about how the jurors felt about assault. Most people didn’t state anything directly, but did not object when she said it wasn’t a good thing. Interestingly though, the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance may hold true here. Some of the jurors may actually have committed assault before, yet still view it as something not good for society. No evidence of this happening exists, but during the selection process I thought about it quite a bit.
I also wondered how Hagan’s motivation may play into this. For example, if Hagan has a high social need for power, and Whitburn took away some of his power. Or a high need for achievement, and Whitburn caused him to fail. Or a high need for intimacy and Whitburn interfered in one of his relationships. The potential motivations could go on and on, but my point is that some of the jurors may have similar motivations. One juror, though unless familiar with psychology unaware of it, may have a high social need for power and recognize that in Hagan. Again, this would cause the juror to feel more familiar with the defendant; similarity has been shown to have significant influence (a positive association) with verdicts.
To go off of that, any jurors who are similar to the defendant would be more inclined to be lenient. This is called the similarity-leniency effect. However, if a male was the only male on the jury, he may be more inclined to be harsh towards Hagan, a male defendant, to disassociate himself and prove himself worthy to the other jurors.
Terms: similarity-leniency effect, social needs for power, achievement and intimacy, empathy, venir, voir dire, primacy effect, recency effect, bias
I went to Black Hawk County Courthouse in Waterloo for my court visit. I had been into the courthouse before for other things but I was nervous in going in considering I would be listening in on an actual case. The proceeding that I attended was a just a jury selection in an assault case. The types of psychology I witness while there were cognitive, social, and personality.
The cognitive part of psychology presented itself when the prosecutor and defense attorney were asking the jurors questions. They would use these leading questions to kind of manipulate what they wanted these potential jurors to respond with. There wasn't much of this but I could definitely see some aspects of this branch in psychology.
The psychology of personality was also evident in this court proceeding. Personality came into play when the prosecutor and defense attorney asked them questions. They used these questions to help them determine what type of personality these potential jurors had. If they didn't like it and it wouldn't help them with their case, they would get rid of them. They used their questions to their advantage and would ask them to explain themselves so they could get a feel for how their thought process worked which I thought was very interesting. I have never been called for jury duty and have always resisted it, but after watching this proceeding, I think it would be an interesting experience. I would love to see how other jurors rationalized what they thought of the case and was quite disappointed after I left because I still don't know what happened with the case.
The presence of social psychology was much more evident in this case because when all of the jurors were being questioned, it was in front of the whole courtroom. I think the presence of other people probably influenced people to respond to questions differently than they might have if they were alone. It was very clear that some people were answering based on what the previous juror had stated, inevitably from the social pressure to go along with the norms of what everyone else was responding. I understand why they do everyone at once, but I think they could get more of an accurate response from these people if they could question them individually. I think their answers then would be a lot more truthful.
I stayed at the courthouse for about an hour and a half I believe. Over the course of that time, I learned a lot about the jury selection process actually worked. If I had the time, I would definitely attend more of these proceedings just to see how everything actually works and the different aspects of psychology can come into play with all of the different kinds of trials.