I seem to have a knack of picking court hearing where absolutely nothing of significance will take place (but that's just me I'm sure for the parties involved a lot happened.) Anyhoo, the judicial system being bound as it is by laws both substantive and procedural (complex and continually evolving to boot,) has developed into a highly ritualized system with its own language and mores.
Myself, being a new lawyer, figured that I ought to see it in action a few times to get back into the groove. (I've appeared in court before under the law student rule, but its been a long while...) thus my treks to various halls of justices where I could sit in and observe the legal system at work. I've been doing this in between peddling my resumes and going to interviews, but as noted earlier, it seems I always pick a hearing that does not take place (there is a nagging suspicion in the back of my mind that all hearings are like that, which I steadfastly ignore lest I lose all faith in the system.)
For example, the one I went to this morning, the court calendar has about a dozen cases set, all criminal cases, with a nice balance of arraignment, pre-trials and hearings. Arraignments are easy and I really didn't expect much to happen, basically the charge against the accused is read to him or her (in a language jbown to him/her,) and thereupon s/he will make his/her plea (either guilty or not guilty,) not surprisingly both the accused that I saw today pleaded "not guilty." The judge therefore set the pre-trial for those cases roughly two months from now. (no problem really if the accused were free on bail but they were detained in these cases. still nothing they can do about it, that's how things work here.)
For the pre-trial, what usually happens is the prosecution and the defense can stipulate on facts (among other things they could also agree on the number of witnesses and admit evidence) unfortunately however there's no private prosecutor or private defense counsel so limited to both the public prosecutor and the representative from the public attorney's office for the accused, both choose not to stipulate. I am not being derogatory here either, considering the amount of work they both have it's easier to not stipulate on anything (even though the purpose of pre-trial is to save time) rather they will rely on rote memory in proving their cases (you've seen one case you've seen them all.) For the prosecution, establish guilt by proving the elements of the felony, for the defense, establish reasonable doubt. Also, the court would not need to bother with preparing a pre-trial brief, but instead go straight to trial. (which is also set two months down the road.)
Trials are what I came to see, I want to know the language; the motions (both figuratively and literally;) the rituals; the works.
...and of course, I didn't see it. Let's see, I think three of the cases set for trial did not take place because the witnesses for the prosecution were not around. (one was even provisionally dismissed by the judge because of that lapse.) At least one other did not take place because the accused did not show up (even the court's sheriff is not sure which detention facility holds the accused.) One other was postponed in the hopes of securing an amicable settlement between parties. One was re-raffled because the judge inhibited himself from hearing the case... and so and on...
Sigh... this is probably why I don't read legal thrillers, they're a bunch of baloney.
Myself, being a new lawyer, figured that I ought to see it in action a few times to get back into the groove. (I've appeared in court before under the law student rule, but its been a long while...) thus my treks to various halls of justices where I could sit in and observe the legal system at work. I've been doing this in between peddling my resumes and going to interviews, but as noted earlier, it seems I always pick a hearing that does not take place (there is a nagging suspicion in the back of my mind that all hearings are like that, which I steadfastly ignore lest I lose all faith in the system.)
For example, the one I went to this morning, the court calendar has about a dozen cases set, all criminal cases, with a nice balance of arraignment, pre-trials and hearings. Arraignments are easy and I really didn't expect much to happen, basically the charge against the accused is read to him or her (in a language jbown to him/her,) and thereupon s/he will make his/her plea (either guilty or not guilty,) not surprisingly both the accused that I saw today pleaded "not guilty." The judge therefore set the pre-trial for those cases roughly two months from now. (no problem really if the accused were free on bail but they were detained in these cases. still nothing they can do about it, that's how things work here.)
For the pre-trial, what usually happens is the prosecution and the defense can stipulate on facts (among other things they could also agree on the number of witnesses and admit evidence) unfortunately however there's no private prosecutor or private defense counsel so limited to both the public prosecutor and the representative from the public attorney's office for the accused, both choose not to stipulate. I am not being derogatory here either, considering the amount of work they both have it's easier to not stipulate on anything (even though the purpose of pre-trial is to save time) rather they will rely on rote memory in proving their cases (you've seen one case you've seen them all.) For the prosecution, establish guilt by proving the elements of the felony, for the defense, establish reasonable doubt. Also, the court would not need to bother with preparing a pre-trial brief, but instead go straight to trial. (which is also set two months down the road.)
Trials are what I came to see, I want to know the language; the motions (both figuratively and literally;) the rituals; the works.
...and of course, I didn't see it. Let's see, I think three of the cases set for trial did not take place because the witnesses for the prosecution were not around. (one was even provisionally dismissed by the judge because of that lapse.) At least one other did not take place because the accused did not show up (even the court's sheriff is not sure which detention facility holds the accused.) One other was postponed in the hopes of securing an amicable settlement between parties. One was re-raffled because the judge inhibited himself from hearing the case... and so and on...
Sigh... this is probably why I don't read legal thrillers, they're a bunch of baloney.
No comments:
Post a Comment