Court Visit

This morning, while at home in Boone, I took a trip down to the Boone County Courthouse. My mom is a dispatcher, and she told me that there would be some initial hearings this morning from the night before and earlier in the weekend. Had this assignment been due about two weeks later, I could have sat in on the murder trial that will begin shortly. Nevertheless, the procedures I saw this morning were very interesting.

When I arrived at the courthouse, I went into the Clerk of Courts office to see what I would be in for. The women were very short with and told me to just go sit upstairs (where the district and associate district courtrooms are located) and wait for something to happen today. As I reached the courtroom, I ran into a secretary in the hall, and explained why I was there. After consulting with the others in her office, she introduced me to the District Judge and the Magistrate. The three of us talked about the division of trials and hearings in Boone County and what I was likely to see.

Since there were no trials scheduled, I went into the Associate District Courtroom to await the beginning of the day. Before long, a jailer brought in someone who had been picked up over the weekend. The jailer, a usually very friendly woman, barked short commands at the mid-twenty year old. When the Magistrate came in, the defendant stood and approached the bench. The magistrate read the charges and affirmed that the defendant understood his rights. He was being held on $2,000 cash bond for violating a no contact order. He was already awaiting trial for domestic abuse. No one was injured in the previous situation, so the charge was a misdemeanor. At this hearing, the defendant did not enter a plea. A date for further proceedings was set and the defendant was advised that he was entitled to an attorney and the state would provide one if he could not. He told the Magistrate who would be defending him. When all of the information was entered, was escorted back across the street by the jailer.

The Magistrate and I sat and discussed how the court system in Boone works, judge discretion, and issues of bond. He spent some time answering my questions and making conversation. After fifteen minutes, a hungover Iowa fan walked into the courtroom. The Magistrate asked for his name and went to collect his paperwork. In the meantime, the guy tried to strike up a nice conversation.

“Did you know you can get arrested for knocking someone’s phone out of their hand? What’d they get your for? Something stupid?”
“I’m here observing for a class I’m in.”
“Are you in a Criminology class then?”
“It’s psychology and law.”
“Oh. That’s too smart for me. I just weld. There has to be a better way to get out of work than this. The judge refused to see me yesterday because I was still so drunk.” Oh, perfect. Seriously, the longest three minutes of my life.

When the Magistrate returned, he called my new friend to the bench. It turns out, he was picked up for “obstructing an emergency communication” by hitting the phone out of his girlfriend’s hand during a “domestic situation.” After the charges were read, the Magistrate informed him of his right to trial by jury if he wished and had him enter a plea. He plead guilty to the charge and stood impatiently at the bench while the Magistrate determined his sentence. He was then asked to describe in his own words what had happened. He was inebriated when the event occurred, so he was not able to do so. It was interesting to see one of the aspects of memory we discussed at work in a courtroom. After questions about his family, his job, and prior charges, it was determined that he would pay $460 dollars including his court costs. After he left, we talked again about court discretion and what he uses to decide sentences. All in all, I had a good experience. Everyone was very friendly, with the exception of the Clerk of Courts office. They invited me to come back whenever to learn more or ask other questions.

Over spring break, I visited the Linn County Court House. During my day in court, I observed four arraignments as well as two civil cases. The four arraignments were for people that were caught stealing as well as drug cost. They all couldn’t afford to hire their own attorney so the court appointed an attorney to represent them. The two civil cases that I observed during my time at court were about a person hitting another person’s car (it was actually the daughter of a cop who hit the person which I thought was pretty funny) and a family dispute that had gone bad over some money or something along those lines. The initial thing that surprised me was the courthouse itself. The Linn County Courthouse is located on the 3rd Ave Bridge in downtown Cedar Rapids. The building itself was a lot bigger than what I was expecting it to be. When I think about a courthouse, I think of a small building with a single room where all the criminals are brought to face trial. When I entered the courthouse, I was surprised initially with the amount of security guards that the building had in it. After I had gone through the process of getting through security, I asked one of the security guards where the courtroom was located. The guard looked at me as though I was crazy and said back to me “which one?” I didn’t know that there was more than just one main room in the courthouse. In fact, there are multiple rooms. There are roughly 10 courtrooms in the Linn County Courthouse. Not only are the courtrooms split into criminal and civil law, they are also split into different areas of law. These areas include domestic violence, marital cases, and juvenile cases. Each judge is assigned to a specific court room. The courtroom that I sat in for the majority of the day was Judge Ian Thornhill. The next thing that I found surprising was the fact that most of the people were meeting their lawyers the day of their arraignments. They were introducing themselves and telling them the details of the case. One of the four guys who were being arraigned asked if he should fight it, and one of the other convicts told him that he shouldn’t do that because they would just find him guilty anyways. That was something that I found interesting that most of these guys didn’t see the point in fighting their charges because of the fact that they already thought that they were going to be found guilty of the crime anyways. I my mind I would think that you would want to fight it, however, in the real world, fighting it just takes more time to do. The courtroom itself was a lot different from what I was expecting. When I think of a courtroom, I think about the classic crime show style courtroom. This couldn’t be farther from what the courtroom I was in. The courtroom was about half the size of what I thought it was going to be. There were two benches where the public could sit, and some chairs on the side for the criminals to sit. In the middle of the room there were two tables and four chairs where the prosecutor and defense attorneys could sit. The elevated area is where the judge’s desk was located and a small area is where the court reporter could sit and type. There was a door leading to the judge’s chamber and one leading to the hall way. The courtroom guards sat on the benches beside me. The guard was a little surprised to see me in the court room. I am guessing that they don’t see visitors in the courtroom. When Judge Thornhill entered the room, we were all required to stand up and then sit down. One by one the four individuals were brought up before the judge and plead guilty. This is where I saw the first area of psychology happen. They judge read a long list of things that basically asked if the individual was pleading guilty on his own accord. Also, the judge asked him if he was competent and understood whether or not he understood what the word competent meant. The judge would then ask the individual to give a definition of the word. The individuals would give their own interpretation of the word and then Judge Thornhill would say correct and then read of the legal definition of the word. After that Judge Thornhill asked the individual whether or not if he had any mental illness and he understood the charges that were being brought against him. One of the individuals said “I was the one who did it judge.” After going through more process of reading off of a sheet of paper asking if they understood the charges that could be brought against them and they asked each person around five times if they really wanted to plead guilty. This is something that I found encouraging because at least you know that the person was given five chances to take back his plea of guiltiness. This could be linked to an area of psychology were the person originally pleaded guilty of the charges because of coercion by the police. However, the court makes sure upwards of five times that they understand that they are pleading guilty to this charge and this charge only. They make sure they understand that this is the criminal punishment that they can get if they are found guilty of the crime (due to the fact that they were pleading guilty they didn’t really stand a chance of getting found not guilty.) I only visited for a day, however, I was able to see a lot of what makes our court system good and what makes our system bad. The legal clerk was very helpful in showing me where to go. The thing that I found most interesting about our legal system was the fact that they made sure that the person was competent to stand trial. Also, they made sure that the person understood the meaning of the word and the definition of the word. Another area that I saw during the court case was the fact that during civil court emotions can sometimes get a little tense. It was interesting to see how people were reacting to the charges and all that. The only other area of psychology that I could see in the court was the fact that the inmates were almost used to the process. They had been arrested before and had gotten used to the whole process. So they were almost “institutionalized” to the fact that they were going to go to jail and mine as well just get it over with. Overall my courtroom experience was very interesting.

I went and saw a trail at the Black Hawk County Courthouse (I stayed for about 45 minutes). It was an operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated case that took place back on October 12 of 2012 at 2 a.m. When I walked in the court room looked almost exactly how I had it pictured in my mind. I walked in the door and there were rows of wooden benches where the audience sits. In front there is a table for the defense and a table for the prosecution with their backs facing the audience. The jury had stands against the right wall were they sat and then the judge sat in front facing the audience, defense, and prosecution and had a stand so he was sitting about everybody else. He was probably sitting above everybody else to establish that he was in charge of the court and also so he could see everything that was going on. The court room was quite a bit smaller than I had pictured. There was not much room between the defense and prosecution tables and both tables were only a few feet in front of the judge’s stand. There was also a witness stand and right in front of the witness stand sat the secretary who was taking notes over the proceeding trail. Everyone also had to stand when the judge entered as well as the jury.

It was a casual environment. There were three other people in the audience besides me and we were all dressed in jeans and t shirts. The jury as well was dressed very casually. The only people that were in formal attire were the prosecution, defense, and judge. I also was surprised to see the defense and prosecution attorneys talking like friend before the trial took place. It court shows they also show them at each other’s throats so it was interesting to see that it was not a hostile environment. This also made me think that the court appointed the defendant this attorney so the prosecutor and defense attorney might have known each other through that.

The prosecution opened with a statement. The judge gave a speech before the opening statements to the jury about how the statements were not evidence. This made me think that the statements are just used to try to sway the jury based on their emotions and maybe prime them to think certain things. The prosecutor used a lot of emotion in his statement as well as words and phrases such as: it is obvious, clearly, and at the end stated the defendant is guilty. He said these things in hope that since this was the juries’ first impression, they would then think what he was saying was true. The defense, however, did not give an opening statement.

During the trial it was revealed that the defendant refused to do a sobriety test before the officer even asked him to do one. The officer used this as evidence to confirm his belief that this man was drunk. This is an example of conformation bias. Instead of considering the other possibilities, like maybe the defendant was just grumpy and wanted to get home, he took this to mean that he was drunk. Also during the time that the officer had the defendant pulled over the defendant’s contact feel out. When the defendant tried to put it back in, he at first put it in the wrong eye. The officer again saw this as confirming his belief that the man was drunk. He did not attribute it to the fact that it was two in the morning and maybe the man was just tired. I have put my contacts in the wrong eye before when I was sober. But instead the officer used confirmation biased to contribute this mistake the alcohol.

I also would like the point out the time frame between the actual trial and the time of the crime. This crime happened on October 12, 2012, the trial was on March 26, 2013. This is five months after the initial act. The main piece of evidence used, at least from what I saw, was the use of an eye witness, the officer. Memories are fragile. And the longer the amount of time after an even the more distorted the memory gets. Perhaps the officer exaggerated his testimony because his memory had dramatized what he actually saw from the time of the crime. This could hinder a fair trial and cause a verdict to be reached that is false. The longer the time between a trail and a crime the harder it is to trust the memories of witnesses.

The defendant was brought down to the police station later that night and he was given the option to do a breathalyzer. He was told that if he did not do the breathalyzer he would lose his license for twice as long than if he did. This made me think, is this coercion. They are threatening him with a harsher punishment if he does not cooperate. I also wonder if they do this because they want to avoid the cost and time of taking somebody to court.

The defendant was clean cut and dressed in a suit and tie. He probably dressed this way in order to make a good impression on the jury. People tend to have a stereotype in mind when they think of a criminal or a mean looking, shabby dressed, scruffy big male. This defendant was small, attractive, and was dressed like a business man. This probably helped him because first impressions are very important. This look probably kept the jurors from judging him as a criminal right away.

When the prosecutor called the officer that pulled the defendant to the stand the officer spoke directly to the jury. He also restated the same things that the prosecutor said in his opening statement. They probably had rehearsed this early to make sure their stories matched up almost perfectly. At one point the prosecutor asked a leading question. When he asked the officer to point out the defendant in the court room he said “Is the man you pulled over sitting directly to my right?” He should have asked an open ended question such as; “Where is the defendant sitting?”

Watching a trial was a great way to connect what I have learned so far in this classroom to a real life situation. I noticed many things I would not have noticed before. I also changed my perspective on a trial and the image I had in my mind, since the only other experience I have with witnessing court cases are those on Law and Order.

Terms: conformation bias, trial, judge, defense, defendant, prosecution, jury, stereotype, coerce, leading question, memory,

During spring break, I attended a court hearing in Spencer, Iowa at the Clay County Courthouse. I had been in the courthouse before during my freshman year because I job shadowed a Juvenile Court Officer and I went with him to a court hearing for one of the juveniles he was associated with. I called him when I got home for spring break and asked him if there were going to be any hearings with in the week and he told me to come by and he would join me. Oddly enough, the court hearing was for a kid that I went to high school with. He was in court for assaulting his girlfriend who I also went to school with. They are both twenty years old. I remember them both being really weird, and as I found out, they hadn’t changed. The Juvenile Court Officer and I went to the hearing with told me that the girlfriend did not want to press charges, but her mom insisted that she should. The judge asked the defendant if he has had any kids with this girl, and thankfully he said no.

The Juvenile Court Officer and I sat at the back of the court room, and as soon as the judge came out, he had a quick word with the guy I came with and asked who I was. I told him that I needed to observe a court hearing for a class. He seemed impressed that a college student was watching one of his hearings. I thought the hearing would take a lot longer than it did, but it seemed like it had only lasted for about fifteen minutes. The judge kept asking the boyfriend if he knew that what he did was wrong, and why it was wrong. I suppose this was the judge’s attempt to assert competency. I didn’t think this would be necessary but I guess you never know with some people. This was also his first assault charge, but he also had a DUI from last summer. The girlfriend was asked to come to the stand so she could be asked some questions. All she pretty much did was cry because I really don’t think she wanted her boyfriend to get into much trouble. She stated that it was largely her fault because she was in a bad mood and only put her boyfriend in a bad mood. I think the judge could tell that she didn’t want her boyfriend to get into trouble, and probably kept that in the back of his mind.

This wasn’t the most exciting case in the history of court cases, but it was really interesting to watch. I tried to take into account everything we have read about, and the things we have talked about in class like how someone’s psychological state could be altered by drugs and alcohol. The prosecution questioned the defendant on how much he likes to drink, even though he is only 20. The assumption that alcohol may be the leading factor in this incident made total sense. The guy was found guilty and the girlfriend ended up issuing a restraining order on her boyfriend, and he was also told to get himself admitted into an alcohol awareness program to help him with his outrages. I was hoping for a Judge Judy kind of trial where there would be a lot of yelling and fighting, but it was quite calm and quick in an efficient matter. After the trial, we talked to the Judge and he asked where I was going to college and what majors I am perusing. This was a real eye-opener, and I really enjoyed my time at the courthouse.

I took the time over spring break to visit the Black Hawk County Courthouse in downtown Waterloo. I had never been here before, but was surprised at how large of a building it was. I walked in and was greeted with metal detectors right away. I proceeded to the jury information desk to tell them I was a UNI student and would like to sit in on a proceeding. The lady directed me to another desk through a set of double doors. I talked to another lady at the second desk and was told I could go into a courtroom. I quietly crept in the backdoor and took a seat in the back.

I was extremely surprised by how small the courtroom was! There were only about 5 rows of benches and even though I was in the last row, I was still extremely close to the judge, client, lawyers, etc. Because I came in the middle of the proceeding, it was difficult to tell exactly what was going on. By listening I was able to find out that the defendant, an older, bald man named “Mr. Nelson” had a shady past. Terms such as “armed with intent” were used to describe aspects of his record. A few minutes of the proceeding focused on a past OWI where a knife and firearm were found inside Mr. Nelson’s vehicle. After a confusing set of past criminal activity, the judge asked him if he had anything else to say. Mr. Nelson proceeded to tell “his side of the story.” He described how he was a veteran and is now permanently disabled. He also described someone firing two shots through his house and how he frequently sees “flashbacks.” The whole “speech” he gave was very confusing and the judge didn’t look very amused; in fact, he didn’t look like he was listening at all to Mr. Nelson.

After he was done speaking, the judge said he was going to charge him guilty with possession of a controlled substance (I assume this was the whole reasoning for the procedure in the first place). The judge told Mr. Nelson that he was taking into account his prior convictions, his age, his disabilities, his financial situation, and the results of an “evaluation” that must’ve been previously done. He recommended that Mr. Nelson continue to work with his physicians regarding his disabilities and that he continue to take his prescribed medications. Considering the circumstances, the judge ordered there be no jail time, but that there be a $300 fine and supervised probation. He promised Mr. Nelson that everything that was being done that day would not interfere with any of his medical procedures or recovery.

Throughout this proceeding, random people who looked like lawyer were quietly enter the courtroom and sit down for a few minutes. The judge never acknowledged us and we left as quietly as we came. After seeing the last half of that proceeding we were told by the lady at the desk that we could attend a certain proceeding that starts at 3:30. The way she was talking made it seem like this thing happens every day for an hour between 3:30 and 4:30 and that it’s where anyone from the public who needs to talk to a judge or get something done can do that. I sat in the back again and this room was a little larger than the first, but still not what I was expecting. A few other people were in the room and the judge came in and took a seat. He took one look at us (my fiancée and I) and said “UNI students, right?” I smiled and nodded my head and he proceeded to call up the names of the people who were sitting in the benches near me. I didn’t catch why the first girl was there, but the second lady he called up said she was there to lift a restraining order off of somebody. She filled out some papers and left.

No one else came in and the judge told me he usually is much busier during this hour but since he wasn’t, did I have any questions? I asked him a few questions about hwo he likes his job, what his previous experience was like, and if he comes into contact with many psychologists. He said he loves his job and that previously, he was a lawyer. He described how he sort of misses being a lawyer and actually being in on the “action.” He went on to say that he comes in to contact with psychologists daily and that psychology is an extremely important/relevant aspect when dealing with the law. He said 90% of prisoners have some sort of mental health problem. I ran out of questions to ask and my fiancée and I left. We were at the courthouse for just over an hour.

I noticed many psychologically relevant things in the visit to the courthouse. First, in the first court proceeding I attended, Mr. Nelson described being a veteran and having flashbacks. This, to me, screamed PTSD and is very relevant to clinical psychology. I think this also may be the reason he was carrying a knife and firearm in his vehicle when he was pulled over for an OWI. Mr. Nelson had mentioned he sees a psychiatrist and I wonder if he has actually been diagnosed with PTSD. Second, if we think psychologically about the judge, we can rightly assume that the judge comes into contact with experts on a daily basis. In addition, the judge gets to see firsthand accounts from eyewitnesses, and evidence of crimes dealing with DNA and fingerprints.

I enjoyed my visit to the courthouse and I found it interesting to see court proceedings in progress. It also opened my eyes to the fact that there really is psychology out there in everyday life right in the courthouse.

The day to day processes of the judicial system, whether criminal or civil, is generally mundane. Many people do not realize this because of what is broadcast on television or in the movies. Extreme cases are not the usual cases that actors in the judicial system regularly deal with. A jury is not present in all cases, the judge is not always a stern older man, and the attorneys are not always bitter rivals. Most cases at any given courthouse on any day are generally unexciting but are vital to the upkeep of society and social standards. The inner workings of the judicial system are not what the general public sees or has any immense knowledge about. I went to the Blackhawk County Courthouse on two occasions and stayed for about two hours on each day. I saw very different things on each of those days and different parts of the justice system. The first day was a Thursday and I watched about two hours of the third day of a felony domestic abuse case. This was a very interesting day to watch this case because there were three different witnesses called to testify. Each of these witnesses was called from the prosecution and included Mr. Wilson, a Waterloo police officer, Ms. Davis, an Allen Hospital emergency nurse, and Dr. Hill, an Allen Hospital emergency physician director. Each was questioned by the state prosecutor and then by the defendant’s attorney. Each was questioned by the state prosecutor and then by the defendant’s attorney. Each witness was asked about the facts of the case that they were directly involved with and how they recounted the activities and timeline of the night in question. It was very obvious when the defending attorney cross-examined the witnesses that he tried to undermine some of their statements in an effort to make their testimonies weaker. The jury consisted of thirteen members, seven of which were women and six were men. The prosecutor and the defender spoke in legal terms most of the time but the prosecutor frequently related them into layman’s terms for the witnesses and the jury. Judge Staudt was in charge and his interruptions were always allowed, he often looked out for the court reporter by making sure she had everything down and that people were speaking clearly and slowly enough. The judge also looked out for the jury to make sure they were comfortable and if they needed any breaks. I did not see how this case was disposed of but with the evidence and testimonies that I heard I believe that the defendant had a chance of being found guilty.
The second day I went I saw a juvenile case and part of jury selection. Judge Clarke presided over the juvenile case that involved a young man who had previously plead and been found guilty of a class D felony. The state attorney asked that felony adjudication be withheld and to let the minor try to comply with probation, which the defender agreed with. Judge Clarke was quite stern but kind when talking to the defendant; letting him know that we all make our own choices and that he would always believe in the him until he proves him wrong. The defendant’s parents were present and seemed to be supportive of their son. The attorneys were dressed in professional attire and spoke in mainly layman’s terms for everyone to understand. The jury selection was very different than watching a normal case play out and the part I was present for consisted of the state prosecutor asking questions to a group of the potential jurors. The jury selection was presided over by Judge Dryer. The prosecutor began asking questions to the remaining potential jurors, starting with if anyone had heard anything about the case in question or remembers when it happened. He then listed off many names, police officers, and other attorneys that work with or beside him and asked if anyone present recognized any of the names. One person recognized a name, explained why, and stated that they would have a very hard time being impartial during this case. This person believed they would not be impartial during the trial because of their job and their knowledge of a specific person, and they were then dismissed from the jury selection process. The prosecutor’s request to dismiss this person had to be in agreement with the defender and allowed by Judge Dryer. The prosecutor then went on to discuss certain terms, including reasonable doubt, joint criminal conduct, and aiding and abetting, to see if anyone present knew what they meant or had heard them before.
There were aspects of psychology in almost all of the things that I was present for. The first case, about domestic abuse, the repeated abuse was discussed and it was clear to see that the defendant was uncomfortable. It may have been painful to hear about the things he had done to his wife in front of a jury and judge. The defense attorney also tried to undermine the prosecution’s witnesses because it could make them seem less credible to the jury. They were actually experts in their areas – a nurse, doctor, and police officer. So they knew what they were talking about and could prove that to the jury, so it may have had more weight than if they were normal people. During the juvenile case the judge was being supportive but stern to the juvenile, which could have help with positive reinforcements and helping the child understand that they weren’t trying to punish him but to help him. The jury selection process deals with a lot of questions being asked, this is to weed out the professionals and the people who know anything about the case or the defendant. Usually the attorney’s may not want a lawyer or doctor or some other expert in their field to be on a jury because of the influence they may have on the other jury members. It is also important for the attorney’s to ask all types of questions to the potential jury members because they want people who will potentially rule in favor of their client.

I went to the Waterloo courthouse to watch a proceeding. The trial had already started so I had to listen carefully to fit the pieces together of what was going on. It seemed to be a sexual assault case, and a woman was pressing charges on a man. Each had a lawyer, and there was a jury as well. The crime had been committed in September of 2011. The prosecutor played a video of the victim being interviewed by an investigator the night that the assault happened. The audio quality was poor, and the victim spoke very softly so it was difficult to hear everything. From what I did hear, the victim was out that night downtown Waterloo with a male friend. They were drinking at a couple different bars, walking in between. The victim basically blacked out at one point, and has no memory of the rest of the night. A witness said that she was either very intoxicated or had been drugged. She awoke the next morning in a man’s bed (I’m not sure if it was the friend that she was with or not). She was naked, as was the man, and he was on top of her engaging in sexual intercourse. She told him to stop and get off several times, but he continued to have sex with her. She said she was in pain and was obviously not comfortable with the situation. When she left his house, she went straight to her grandmother’s house who lived close by. This was all the information from the video.

Next, the victim was questioned on the witness stand. During the entire video as well as the questioning, the victim never once looked up. She spoke clearly into the microphone, but never raised her head. The prosecutor asked her a few yes or no questions, none of which gave me any information about the case. The victim’s grandmother testified next. She described the interaction with her granddaughter the morning after the assault. Several times the prosecutor would ask the witness a question, and then the defense attorney would interrupt. He would usually say, “speculation,” and the judge would tell the prosecutor to ask the question differently. I didn’t understand this at all. They made a big deal about the grandmother not saying what her granddaughter “told” her, but rather how the granddaughter perceived the granddaughter’s “actions.” This actually got annoying, and I felt bad for the grandmother! The lawyers continuously argued with the judge about the wording of every question. The judge even called them out into the hall for a bit. Like I said, the trial had started before I got there, so I must have missed why the wording of the questions was so important. The police officer that was dispatched to the scene was also questioned. The prosecutor asked him lots of questions about the victim’s appearance and actions when he first saw her. I stayed for a little over an hour, and the police officer was the last witness that I saw.

The biggest aspect of psychology I saw at this trial was eyewitness testimony. The crime occurred in 2011, so obviously time has had an impact on all of the witness’ memories. I don’t know the whole case, so I can say how imperative the eyewitness testimonies are… but the jury needs to be aware that there are many factors that can impede someone’s memory. We aren’t able to pay attention to everything going on around us, we store only selective bits of what we do pay attention to, we forget things over time, our memories are susceptible to revision and corruption, and distortion can occur during retrieval. Another aspect of psychology that seemed to play a big role in this case was emotional affect. The majority of the questions that the prosecutor asked the grandmother and police officer involved the victim’s emotions. The prosecutor wanted to know how they perceived the victim’s emotional state. I suppose this was to prove that the sexual assault had actually taken place. The grandmother mentioned that her granddaughter seemed ashamed; she would not look her in the eyes. She said her granddaughter seemed disoriented, shaky, and was trying to hold back tears. Psychology tells us that our brains are very good detectors of subtle expressions. It didn’t matter that her granddaughter could not speak of what had happened to her; her facial expressions and gestures were enough to cue the grandmother that something was very wrong. The nonverbal communication is what prompted the grandmother to call 911. I’m not exactly sure the purpose of these questions, but they do relate to psychology!

Room 109 in the Blackhawk County Court Office was a pretty common place for a lot of criminals and students. At 1:20 I took my seat in that very room to hear some pretty interesting things. Waiting for the Judge to walk through the back door and hear all rise, is not the best thing to hear, usually that means you are in court for something that you did wrong or you have been selected for jury duty, both which are horrendous.

When I was in that court room it brought up a lot of memories, throughout my life as a child I have been in enough court rooms to be fairly comfortable inside of them. The court preceding that had sat in on and listened to was very brief and to the point, I sat in on a criminal, nonjury court hearing. I really had no other time to sit in on an actual criminal case with a jury with me being in and out of the hospital. I sat there and listened to three different cases, all in which had something in common, the people being charged were being charged with serious misdemeanors. These misdemeanors were operating while intoxicated which has a prison sentence maximum of one year, and in possession of a controlled substance; marijuana, which has a maximum prison sentence of six months. Both of these cases were great to listen to, they were quite simple and straight to the point.

While sitting there the judge made sure the men knew their rights and when they pleaded guilty that they could change their plea, and plead not guilty which then they would have the right to a speedy trial or trial with a judge and jury. The judge also then made sure that the case with the OWI was not under any influence of any narcotics, drugs, or alcohol so he could be fully aware and competent of what was going on and knew what would happen to him if he was found guilty. The man asked for a deferral because it was his first offense of operating while intoxicated but the county attorney pretty much shot him down by saying that he had other offenses towards him but the judge then quickly stopped him so the defendant wanted to know what the state had against him that he would be denied for the deferral. The judge then stated that it has to go to the Supreme Court for it to be denied for any reason.

The possession of marijuana case really threw me for a loop; the guy kept changing his plea because he could not take much time off of work. It is kind of obvious that you had a substance on you and the police clearly have it on file and have it as evidence why would you change your plea to not guilty? I guess he had the right to plea anyway the he felt was right.

March 27th- Blackhawk County Court House. Case- State vs. Xavier Cambell
So when I came into the courtroom they were actually in the middle of a discussion involving wether an excited utterance would be allowed to be said based on some different factors. Because what was going to be said would be considered hearsay in normal situations the state was arguing that because it was an excited utterance that it should be allowed. The victim at the time of telling the police officer on the stand had been crying and was visibly upset hence why it would be classified as an excited utterance. I think its interesting that they made the jury go out of the courtroom for this moment, due to anything that was argued would stick inside the memories of the jury swaying their opinions either way. That would relate to cognitive psychology.
Now it took me a while to actually know what the case was about but eventually it got out that it was a rape/sexual assault case im not totally sure on what the difference is but they used both words in the case so I wasn’t sure to the extent of the sexual assault itself. It seems though that one Xavier Cambell sexually assaulted a female, after which he walked over the kwikstar near where the event had happened. At that time the victim called the police who then shortly arrived(this was all near franklin street which is really close to the courthouse). When the police arrived they were told that the suspect had gone to the store which they then went to. A David Geist was working at the time and when the police asked for video of a male with a red coat on they were able too look back and find it. That video would later be entered into evidence as Exhibit Q.
Next to the stand was Officer Boyland- who took the victim ( I wont mention her name for reasons of recognition) to the hospital so that she could get checked out and the sexual assault kit could be performed on her. The results of the sexual assault kit remain unknown to me as they will hear about that today. Its interesting to note though that because of how long cases take to actually happen a lot of the memory process can be damaged as all the suspects couldn’t remember a lot of things.
Next called to the stand was a Lacquetia White. By far my favorite witness as she was very stubborn. Now she was a friend of the defendant but was called by the state in terms of her testimony. However it appeared that she still considered the defendant a friend as she tried very hard to not admit certain things even if she wrote them in an affidavit. Apparently the defendant had come over to her house after the incident, after he was apprehended she found what would appear as his boxers left in her restroom and they were wet and smelled of soap. The part she didn’t want to admit for some reason was the fact they smelled like soap although she pretended to just not remember if she had smelt anything even upon being showed her previous statement of admitting it smelled like soap. So again its curios from a psychological point to think that at one point she admitted all that information but now she had such a problem remembering which is possible but you would probably remember that specific detail.
Lastly Officer Kemp was called to the stand and he was an officer called to the site of the defendants apt. to make sure it was secure. At this time the defendant had come back and wanted to visit his house and go to the bathroom which the officers escorted him to. However upon reaching the restroom he wanted to take a bath which because this was a sexual assault case was denied he became upset and then went to the bathroom instead. Shortly after this they went back downstairs where he left the premises(the cops couldn’t detain him as of yet) and went to what they suspect was Mrs. Whites house.
That was the last witness that I had seen for the day. So it was very interesting to see how the different people could semi remember certain things. I noticed that the lawyers even if they knew it was going to be objected to would try to get certain information out just so the jury would hear it because even if it was stricken from the record you cant erase it from the minds of the jury. The psychological aspect behind that is pretty clear and it’s a tool all lawyers use in cases hence why debating a certain call for objection will result in the jury leaving.
Overall it was an interesting day to be in there. It reminded me so much of mock trial though just the way everything happened and the way the lawyers went about things. The defendant too should be noted that for the most part he just looked like he didn’t want to be there although when his friends and family came he became a little happier about the situation. Also another psychology theme the lawyers didn’t seem to mind each other, in trials you would think they wouldn’t like each other because of their position in the trial but they actually got along quite well and even joked around after the case was adjourned for the day.

My journey to the courthouse actually occurred a short while before this semester started. My dad had been called to jury duty and was participating in a fairly minor trial, so I decided to go and see how the process worked as well. I showed up to the courthouse a short while before the trial was supposed to start and asked the person at the jury information window which room the trial was supposed to take place in. The woman at the jury information window told me and I walked down the hall to the room and took a seat. A short while later, the judge entered, the jury took their seats, and the trial began. I unfortunately can’t remember what the defendant’s name was but they were being charged with possession of a controlled substance, specifically marijuana. The judge made a point of saying that it wasn’t the first time the defendant was caught with a controlled substance, beyond just marijuana. The prosecution made their opening statement, followed by the defense attorney. After that, both side presented evidence. The officer that caught the defendant in possession of the marijuana gave his testimony. Nothing interesting or surprising came of this of course, it just seemed to be standard procedure. The defendant was also called up to testify and claimed that that marijuana wasn’t his and that one of his friends must have left it in his car when they were spending time together one day. It didn’t seem like this swayed anyone’s opinion on whether he was guilty or not and I was surprised that such a weak testimony was being allowed by his defense attorney. Both sides continued to present evidence and deliberate for a while in the stereotypical manner I tend to see on tv shows and in movies. After both sides were finished, the prosecutor made his closing statement and the judge stopped him after it. The judge called the prosecutor and the defense attorney up to his bench and said something to them. The judge then told the jury to leave until they were called back. After being called back, the judge told the jury that they could go home. He said that the prosecutor mentioned something; I believe it was evidence or some sort, that hadn’t been brought up before in the trial. Due to this, the judge declared a mistrial. After releasing the jury, the judge turned his attention to me and asked me why I was there for the day. I told him my dad was participating on the jury and that I was currently a student in college. He asked if I was a criminology major and I told him that I was a psychology major and a minor in criminology and was planning to take psychology and law as a class for the upcoming semester. He asked if I had any questions about the trial and I asked him what would happen to the defendant since the prosecutor messed up and caused a mistrial. The judge told me that the defendant would likely get off on the charges due to the declaration of a mistrial.

The whole experience was fairly interesting, with the ending being the most interesting by far. The trial lasted about 4 hours overall and while interesting, seemed like a very boring and tedious process. My dad also wasn’t happy that his time was essentially wasted due to the prosecution’s mistake at the end.

Over spring break, my fiancé and I went to the Polk County Courthouse in Des Moines. We talked to the information desk about what cases were being presented today. Unfortunately for us, it was a non-jury week. However, the secretary mentioned a forgery case. The defendant had tried to cash three checks that were not his, and when a police officer confronted him, he lied about what his name was.
Upon walking into the empty courtroom at 11:00, we met the Prosecutor. He asked me about this class and if I had any questions for him. He briefly told me about how trials work and about his job. I also met Judge McDonald who questioned if I was going to go into the field of law enforcement. During this time, the defense attorney kept pacing the courtroom and checking his watch and phone. After 30 min of waiting, the Judge called both attorneys into his office so they could discuss the motion. Forty-five minutes after the trial was supposed to start, the defendant appeared.
The first thing I noticed was the easy capability of incompetency of someone who knows nothing about how the criminal justice system works. When the prosecutor was describing the methods and “lingo” to me, it was very easy to get lost. Even with my fiancé (who majored in Criminal Justice) there explaining other aspects to me, it was still difficult to comprehend everything that was going on. When the defendant showed up, the Judge calmly told him they had already approved of the motion. Even after my fiancé and the prosecutor told me, I still don’t fully understand what means. However, if I had a specific training to further understand the criminal justice system, I believe that I would be more competent.
Another aspect of psychology I saw in action was the amount of information that each attorney shared with the other. Unlike in the movies where an attorney has some hidden secret surprise up his sleeve, both attorneys were equally knowledgeable in the way in which each wanted to pursue the trial. That being said, the prosecution and the defense each presented their arguments to each other and about why they felt that way. The prosecution brought up the fact that the defense had the burden of proof. He was to prove that the defendant did not in fact lie to the officer and try to cash three checks that were not his. In my opinion, that would be a difficult task. The officer saw him try to cash the checks and when he asked him what his name was he lied to the officer. After he was put in handcuffs, the officer realized that the name he told him was not the name listed on his license. The prosecutor told the defense attorney that he could try to charge him for interfering with official acts. However, he felt that if the defendant plead guilty, then he would not pursue the extra charges.

Over spring break, I went to the Howard County Courthouse in my hometown for about a half hour and sat in on an OWI arraignment. There were a lot of things that I learned while there, because I’ve never actually seen a trial in person before.

First off, the courtroom looked basically the same as on television (maybe just a little smaller, but that makes sense because it’s a small town). There was a spot for the judge, jury, and for people testifying. I sat in the back in the gallery area, and there were a few other people there too.

After sitting in on this, I now know that television shows really dramatize courtroom scenes, etc. This one was pretty slow paced and straightforward. Technically it was just an arraignment, so the defendant plead guilty and was sentenced, but I compared it to a term in the book, a “bench trial.” There was no jury, and the judge was in charge of hearing everything and sentencing, so that’s what it reminded me of.

Since this was the guy’s first offense, he got a lighter punishment. He was sentenced to two days in jail, 40 hours of community service, 90 days of license suspension, and some fines, but I can’t remember how much they were (I think somewhere between $500 and $1000). I also think he’s now required to go to an AA class for a while. Even though all of this is considered a “light punishment,” I still think it’s a lot. It’s definitely not worth it to drive drunk. This guy could’ve paid a little extra for a cab, but that’s nothing compared to the fines and time he now has to give up because of his sentence. Plus, this is now on his record (for everyone to see, as we learned in class that one day!).

Relating this to our textbook, I was wondering if the judge followed some determinate sentencing or sentencing guidelines. Determinate sentencing is looking at the severity and type of crime, and the corresponding sentence that goes with it. The book has a nice little chart on page 351. This is only an advisory tool that judges can use, but I was just wondering if maybe he consulted it? Going with that is sentencing guidelines, which are basically the same thing. Judges are not required to follow these, but they may still consult to see what the typical sentence is for the severity and type of crime, while also taking into account whether the guy is a repeat offender.

The last thing I wanted to discuss the sentences for a second, third, fourth, etc. OWI. Lucky for this guy, it was only his first offense. Hopefully he’s not that dumb again. But the sentences for these are pretty bad. I was looking on the Iowa DOT website, and it was really interesting. For each offense, there’s a lot more jail time, bigger fines, and more community service. I also found it funny that people convicted of an OWI have to get an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installed in their car for up to a year. I’ve done reports on these before; you blow into the thing to start the car, and then blow periodically while driving to keep it running. Your blood alcohol content (BAC) has to be below the legal limit in order to operate the vehicle.

This was a really cool experience, and I think everyone should have to sit in on a court proceeding at least once in their life. It’s a real eye-opener, and it shows you how much it would suck to be in the defendant's position!

For my court visit I waited a little while in order to go to the Waterloo courthouse and watch someone who I had went to high school with. This person, whose name is Jon, was was being charged for a couple of serious misdemeanors. These charges were an unlawful possession of prescription drugs and possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. Each of these charges could have resulted in up to a year in jail and fines on top of that.

When I first entered the court house I had to go through the metal detector which did not surprise me. It made me feel safer knowing that some disgruntled criminal or family member couldn't just waltz in and take out their anger on the people and bystanders that convicted them. I went up to the help desk and asked the lady what courtroom Jon was going to be in. They directed me to the correct room he was going to be in and told me that it probably wouldn't be that interesting to watch because they were just going to be making their pleas or something. She suggested another room with a sexual assault case going on, but I wanted to see what was going to happen to Jon.

I walked into the courtroom and sat in the back by myself. The courtroom looked pretty much how I expected it to look, although I was surprised to see that there wasn't actually a jury present. I realized later that for the stuff I was about to be witnessing you didn't really need a jury. The courtroom was full of people sitting around looking kind of nervous. I was a little confused as to what was going on at first but I figured it out a bit later.

The judge entered and everyone had to rise. He then began calling people's names, who went to the front where he read aloud their charges and whether they wanted to plea guilty or not guilty. I realized that everyone sitting in the courtroom had been charged with something, most seemed to be possession of drugs, DUI/OWI, or other traffic related crimes. After their charges were read they plead either guilty or not guilty and were given a later court date for either sentencing or what I assume would be the actual court proceeding with a jury. Most people seemed to plead guilty however.

The judge went through people pretty fast, so I instead turned to observing the people waiting. Most just seemed like normal people wearing casual clothes, however there were some that dressed up nicely. This reminded me of how in class we talked about the "babyface" in which people will try and look innocent. Some people, mostly the younger ones, had their families present. I tried not to stereotype, but I liked to try to guess what people had done before their charges were read aloud. Mostly I was wrong and ended up being surprised at what the person had done. I found it interesting that some people had their lawyers with them, some did not, and some just had their lawyers present for them. It made me feel like the whole process I was witnessing was pretty informal.

I stayed for about an hour or so until Jon was called. He went to the front and the judge read off his charge. I'm pretty sure Jon pleaded guilty because he was trying to get the charges deferred. A deferred judgement can be given if the person had not prior used it on another charge. I also pretty sure that everyone gets one, or in his case it could be used for both because they were at the same time. As long as you remain out of trouble throughout your probation and don't pick up another charge, the charges will be dropped from your record after one year. Jon had a fairly clean prior record except for some driving tickets, so he was fairly certain he would be granted a deferred judgement. An interesting thing that I later found out was that the lawyer Jon's parents hired said that his ex wife was the state prosecutor. I found this funny and interesting, although I don't think Jon did.

After Jon had made his plea and received his next court date he left, so I didn't stay much longer. All in all it was interesting to witness, although I was a little disappointed that it wasn't exactly how I expected, with a jury, evidence, etc. I imagine that for those who pleaded not guilty that would be the next step for them in the court process.

I arrived at the courtroom and listened to the beginnings of a domestic abuse case. The first part of the case was rather boring because it dealt with selecting the jury, although it was interesting to see how that unfolded because I have never been selected. The judge stated that they would carry 13 jurors instead of the usual twelve because this case called for an extra mind on trial. Of the 23 or so would be jurors only 13 were selected. I sat next to some older gentlemen who kept murmuring under his breath about how these lawyers went to law school and still don't know how to count, overall he seemed happy he wasn't picked.

During the selection process, the lawyer went around the room and called on individual people, asking their stances on certain issues and how they would respond to certain evidence if it was presented during an actual case. At the end of questioning, the lawyer did something interesting, he asked if anyone would like to answer a question that was asked of another person and give their own answer. One man when asked how he would respond to certain aspects of evidence being presented at a trial gave a great answer. Dealing in psychological terms he said that when people hear of domestic abuse cases their first thought is of a man beating a woman, not the other way around. The actual reason for the domestic abuse case was because of a woman beating her children, it had nothing to do with two adults. The lawyer brought back the notion of stereotypes and how our first instinct when hearing about a domestic abuse case is that a man beat his wife, not that a wife beat her kids.

Another aspect worth bringing up is how parents discipline their children. Spanking is a common method to punish a child when he/she has done something wrong. I have seen mothers smack their children's arms or hit them in the back of the head with a soft object such as a newspaper when they are misbehaving. But how far is too far in this scenario? Obviously you cannot beat your child, but for decades parents have relied on the spanking method to teach their kids right from wrong. I'm not here to argue whether or not that method is moral or not but it does generally teach their kids to not misbehave for fear of being spanked. In this case, however; we are not dealing with a simple spanking but more of an actual beating that occurred.

Today I attended a court hearing at the Black Hawk County Courthouse with some of my friends. Going into the courthouses we of course had to go through the metal detector and after struggling to find hearings that were going on as scheduled, we finally found one.

As we entered the courtroom the hearing had just started. The defendant was a man about 50 years of age, at least, and was wearing jeans and a nice shirt and coat. The judge started off by reviewing the man’s criminal history. The defense attorney helped the judge review this history. The defendant had a criminal record of four DOI’s in Iowa, and one in Wisconsin. This was his sixth DOI since the year 1990. However, it was his first offense since he had gotten his license back from his last DOI. He had also however had many times where he had violated his restrictions on his license, and drove anyways.

The defense attorney discussed the man’s alcoholism. He explained to the judge how even though he had another DOI, he has been struggling with alcoholism for twenty years. Due to his alcoholism, he has not only made bad decisions, but also led him to be without a job for several years in the late 1990’s. Since then, he has recovered somewhat and now has a full time job and works nights. The attorney also explained how hard he has been working to overcome his alcoholism, even though this DOI has been a setback. Then the attorney tried to plea bargain for his client, after his defendant plead guilty to the DOI. The attorney suggested that prison time would not be the best solution for his client, and that having some jail time along with all of the fines and having supervised probation in addition to a restricted license. He explained to the judge how for his situation, overcoming his alcoholism is the best solution for his problem, and how being able to keep his job and work through his problems was a more practical solution. However, he did say that it was important that his client have a restricted license so he would not be a threat to himself and others.

After twenty minutes or so, the judge finally made his decision. He sentenced the man to four days in the Black Hawk County Jail, around $4,000 in fines, 6 years of a barred license and around two years in supervised probation. In addition to all of this, he also was sentenced to take an alcoholism program. The judge talked to the defendant for a few minutes about how he should have given him prison time, but that he felt that this would not be as effective as the sentence he had in place to help him make better decisions. The judge gave lighter punishment than he completely deserved. He also mentioned how dangerous drinking and driving is to himself and the public. After that the hearing concluded and everyone left the courtroom.

All in all this was good experience. Although I personally believe that the man should have gotten a harsher sentence, because it was his sixth DOI in his lifetime, it gave me the full court hearing experience. I had been to a courtroom once before when my family adopted my little sister when I was six, but it was very interesting to experience it in a different context. In the future I would like to go back and see more cases, and possibly be on a jury. This hearing talked about the process of a court hearing we talked about in class, but unfortunately did not have a jury. It did show how alcoholism can cause people to make bad decisions, but is not an excuse to commit a crime. Overall, this experience taught me a lot about court hearings and the process.

This last week I went back home to see my family and I went to the Adel Court House which is about 20 minutes from where I live. I have been in there before, but that was to get my passport for when I went to Mexico. This time it was to watch some of the court proceedings. It was a Thursday when I went down and I went to court on that Friday since the courthouse is not open on Saturdays. But when I was going in I went through the metal detector and and just took off my belt, took out my keys, and put my phone in the basket. For me, I get nervous being around police just because they are police. I got through fine and then I went to the courtrooms. I knew where the courtrooms were because I have already been there before and I have passed the courtroom. One time I was there I remember seeing a man in his prison or jail orange jumpsuit in handcuffs and that is one of the only times I have seen anything like that. It was like the movies.

Once I got in the courtroom I sat in the back because I didn't want to try and be a disturbance to anyone. The case that was going on was just a man talking to the judge for a while. I am pretty sure he was just pleading guilty for a DUI. I got in late, but the next case was between two people. A women was getting a restraining order from a man that had been harassing her. I guess the man had been leaving the women threatening messages saying that he would "beat her up" and "hit her". The man was about 6 feet and was African American. He looked around 40 something years old and had a muscular build. The women was around 5'5" or maybe a little taller and was Caucasian. She had dirty blonde hair and looked to be a little younger than the man, but that was just my thought. These two had been married for a 13 years and they had recently divorced. The women had sole custody of their children so she did not have to let the father see the children whenever he wanted. She was the one who could choose when and where the children and their father should meet. It seemed like he hadn't seen the child in a while and he did not like this. The women had said that the relationship was abusive and that is the reason that they had gotten a divorce.

There was a day the lady was at her job as a secretary, (but I can't remember the company she worked at)and she received 5 messages from the man saying that he would hurt her if she didn't call her back. In psychology he was using the fear concept of persuasion. He said that was the only way she responded to him and I could believe him because to a women I would understand her to be scared. The judge heard all of this information, but he did not say whether or not the restraining order would be applied.

I thought the visit was very interesting and I stayed for about an hour. I really never want to go to the courtroom much more because I just do not like the atmosphere. It seems like there is so much negative energy there and people lie. That might just be me thinking too much when I went there because sometimes in different environments people act differently like I do when I am around police and security. I try and make sure that I am doing nothing wrong around them. I think this affects the people that are going to court as well. They may not be thinking clearly when in court because of nerves.

This past Monday I was in my home town and went to a court visit. I had known the probation officer, because she is a family friend and told me when the case was going to be. One of the people she was supervising broke his parole. He was supposed to call in to a certain number and if his number was given then he was supposed to go in and take a drug test. There were multiple times when he had failed to do so, so he was brought into court. This was a usual trial because there were no jurors, etc. Therefore it was a bench trial. A bench trial is a trial in which the judge decides the outcome of a case. This guy was known for doing drugs. He had committed many new offences after having been released from prison and the judge took this into account when he arrived. The judge required him to do another UA test before the trail began. We waited a few minutes for the results to come back, and when they did it was positive for drugs. Therefore he was under the influence and could not have his trial. She then ordered the US Marshals to take him into custody. The probation officer that is a family friend asked me if I would like to go into the booking room and observe as she talked to him. (of course I said yes) She interrogated him and asked why he would risk going back to jail, and that they had just talked about this. He started crying, which I thought was odd for a man his size, and denied doing any illegal substances (which was obviously a lie.) I think he knew he was in trouble. Later I found out his next trail date was set in 2 weeks, so he was going to have to sit in jail for that long. Turns out it might be good for him to get some thinking accomplished. This was a great experience for me, I especially thought it was very cool that I got to see the US Marshals take him away and also to sit in on his questioning. I hope to go back soon just for the fun of it!

I went to a court preceding yesterday, April 25th. I visited the Blackhawk County Courthouse. I was able to sit in on a case with a jury. I did not see the beginning of the case but I was still able to sort of piece together what was going on. At first while sitting there the defense attorney was talking to me and he said this was going to be a boring case to watch. One of the other students in our Psychology and Law class was also their but she was involved in the case. I am not sure what her job was but she was sitting on the other side of the wall. I thought that was pretty interesting.

When the case started up, the first witness seemed very boring. The attorney for the plaintiff asked questions detailing her work. She worked for a company that gave out grants and financial aid to people that were involved in floods in Cedar Rapids in 2008. The questions led to the plaintiff not getting enough money to repair all of the damages for her house. Also she did not receive help finding people to do the work.

The next witness was extremely interesting. The plaintiff's attorney asked about two questions and then the defense attorney objected saying that the witness was not noted as a witness. The judge asked the jury to exit the courtroom while the attorneys and judge talked about the problem. The prosecution wanted to be able to have the witness leave, get her name on the list of witnesses and call her back to the stand on Monday. The defense attorney said that would not be fair because then he could just call anyone he wanted to the stand. The judge ruled that the witness would not be able to get on the stand. He asked her to leave and called the jury back from the deliberation room.

The next witness was a chiropractor that had given the lady treatments. At this point I found out that she had apparently been in a car accident where she suffered some back pain, neck pain, and knee pain. The prosecution asked very specific questions about the treatments given, and how the patient responded to treatments. Also during these questions the chiropractor explained what makes up the spine. He also talked about what a chiropractor does and how they receive their educations. While talking to the chiropractor they mentioned that the lady had fallen and cracked her skull.

This case appeared to be about a lady that wanted to receive money from someone. I could not figure out who she wanted money from. I also could not tell why she wanted money. They kept talking about how she had to work on her own home after the flooding, they talked about the car accident, and they talked about her falling down. I wish I could have watched the beginning of the case so I would have known all of the details.

I decided to leave at this point because I had to go to work and I did not want to get a parking ticket because I parked at a meter. After going outside I found that I had gotten a parking ticket because my meter expired and I got the ticket 10 minutes before I got to my car. That was pretty frustrating because I thought I had two hours but apparently I only had about an hour and a half.

All in all I thought this was an interesting experience. I was pleased that I got to see an objection. I was not expecting for anything like that to happen. Although the attorney said it was going to be boring I was able to pay attention throughout the whole time I was there.

During my courtroom visit, I was actually one of the people working on the case so I knew what was going on, what kind of prep work was involved before going to trial and who was all going to be testifying. It was very interesting to see how everything played out in the courtroom however, Voir Dire especially.
It was my first time ever witnessing Voir Dire and knowing what types of characteristics my attorney was looking for really helped me understand why he wanted certain jurors. The process started on a Monday morning when myself, my attorney and the paralegal all walked in to a courtroom full of people. I was not expecting to see everyone just sitting around waiting for us. We immediately had to be quite and I was warned not to talk about the case infront of these people. Little did I know that all these people were apart of the jury pool. There had to be about 30 people all packed in to a little courtroom waiting for the judge and both attorneys to become present. After both attorneys and the judge along with the court reporter came in, Voir Dire started. The courtroom attendant started naming off 16 different names at random and they were asked to sit up in the juror chairs while I was instructed by my attorney to write each name down as it was called respective to where each person was sitting. After the random drawing was finished everyone was instructed to leave the courtroom except for the attorneys and the judge. They then went through each name that was called and picked the people that they did not want to have on the jury panel. For instance, our client, the plaintiff was 52 years old and had been involved in a car accident. My attorney did not want any younger people to serve on the jury because she believed that they wouldn’t be sympathetic toward our client’s situation. Also he wanted more of a middle class group instead of people who were of higher education because again they would be more similar to our client. This type of profiling that my attorney used was called stereotyping. He used general personality tendencies to pick out who he thought would be best on this jury. After he picked out who he wanted, the jury came back in and one by one, using his challenges for cause, asked different questions in which excused some potential jurors from the trial. What we had left was a cognizable group that possessed similar qualities as our client.
I thought Voir Dire was really interesting when I actually got to see it first hand; reading about it and seeing it are definitely two different things. My attorney definitely, whether he knew it or not, was working off of the similarity-leniency hypothesis which operates on the basis that jurors who are most similar to our client who was the plantiff in this case, would be more empathetic to her situation and identify with her causing them to be more likely to award her the money that she deserved.
Some background to the case is that our client, the plaintiff, was involved in a four car pile-up in which the defendant’s car rear-ended a car, in which rear ended our client’s car, in which rear-ended another car ahead of hers. Fortunately no one was hurt that day, but after a few days our client started developing serious back problems which has led to multiple surgeries and almost a quarter of million dollars in medical expenses out of pocket combined with insurance payments. Since the accident four years ago her life has been in a steady downward spiral to where today, she can barely get herself dressed in the morning. This case is being tried as a civil case in which we are asking $100,000.00 to be reimbursed to our client for past and future medical expenses. I have spent a total of 3 years on this case in which I took statements of various witnesses involved, put together exhibits as well as have testified on our clients behalf to what I found surrounding the case. It’s crazy that after those 3 years, we have only spent about a week in court allowing our findings to be heard by a jury. This upcoming Monday the 29th we will finish with closing arguments and hear the verdict of the jury. Hopefully it will be good!