At the beginning of my Winterim, I set goals to accomplish during my independent study. As my Winterim has now come to an end, I thought that it would be appropriate to revisit and review the goals I set. I am very happy with what I was able to do during my Winterim, and I am excited to show you what I have learned tomorrow at Winterim Fair, from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM. I appreciate the time that the readers have taken to read and comment on my blog. I hope that all of you enjoyed the journey as much as I did!
My goals: Introduction and Overview
How courts in the United States work: Arraignments
Criminal arraignment docket in a common pleas court
-1-14-2015: Arraignments
Criminal arraignments in local municipal courts
-1-9-2015: Criminal Defense
How courts in the United States work: Court of Appeals
The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals
-1-20-2015: The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals
How courts in the United States work: Criminal trial
Closing arguments
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Jury instructions and deliberation
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Jury selection in state court
-1-12-2015: Voir dire
Opening statements
-1-12-2015: Voir dire
Presentation of evidence for the defense
-1-14-2015: The Defense
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Presentation of evidence for the prosecution
-1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies
Verdict
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
How courts in the United States work: Domestic Relations Court
Child custody dispute
-1-22-2015: Domestic Relations Court
How courts in the United States work: Juvenile Court
Prosecution in Juvenile Court
-1-22-2015: Juvenile Court
How courts in the United States work: Out-of-court settlements
Settlement conference
-1-8-2015: Why More People Should Just Settle
How courts in the United States work: Sentencing
Sentencing in federal court
-1-6-2015: Sentencing
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
Perspectives from legal professionals
The Honorable Vernelis K. Armstrong, United States District Court Magistrate Judge for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; how she sentences a defendant
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
Michael J. Freeman, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; a prosecutor's rationale for a defendant's sentencing and plea deals
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
The Honorable Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Court Judge for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; case management conferences
-1-5-2015: First Day, Figuring Stuff Out
The Honorable James R. Knepp II, United States District Court Magistrate Judge for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; settlement conference basics
-1-8-2015: Why More People Should Just Settle
Lori L. Olender, Lucas County Prosecutor's Office, Juvenile Division Chief, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; the view of a prosecutor in juvenile court
-1-22-2015: Juvenile Court
Bonnie Rankin, domestic relations and criminal defense attorney; divorce
-1-22-2015: Domestic Relations Court
Peter G. Rost, criminal defense attorney; defending clients in municipal courts
-1-9-2015: Criminal Defense
Joe Tafelski, attorney for Center for Equal Justice; how the Center for Equal Justice helps those in need of civil law services
-1-7-2015: Private Practice, Poverty Law
United States Customs and Border Protection, Sandusky Bay Station in Port Clinton; federal law enforcement
-1-21-2015: Federal Law Enforcement
Patricia A. Wise, employment lawyer at Niehaus Wise & Kalas; advising clients
-1-7-2015: Private Practice, Poverty Law
The Honorable Gene A. Zmuda, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas Judge; presiding judge on a trial
-1-12-2015: Voir dire
-1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies
-1-14-2015: The Defense
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Court Judge for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; justification for a particular sentence
-1-6-2015: Sentencing
Proposal for jury selection reform: Fair representation of race and socioeconomic background on juries
-Proposal
Monday, January 26, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
1-23-2015: Proposal–Work in Progress
Today, for the most part, was a work day for my jury selection proposal. As you may recall, one of my goals was to create a proposal to solve the current problem that race and socioeconomic backgrounds are poorly recommended represented on juries (for more information, see page "Introduction and Overview").
I also had an opportunity to meet again with Annie Crawford, the jury selection manager (I first met her on 1-5-2015; see blog post "1-5-2015: First Day, Figuring Stuff Out). I reviewed some of the points from my jury selection reform proposal with her and asked for her thoughts on what I had so far. She was happy with what I had, and I am continuing to work hard on writing the proposal.
Today was also spent working on my presentation for Winterim Fair. I am planning an interactive presentation with the audience that also documents what I have done. I didn't talked in much detail for either the proposal or the presentation; I don't want to spoil it for what you'll see at Winterim Fair. All readers are invited to Winterim Fair, where I'll be presenting my experience learning about the court system. It will be on Tuesday, January 27, 2015, from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM at Maumee Valley Country Day School in Toledo.
Finally, I also worked on thank you emails to send to all of the legal professionals who have helped me and have taken me around. Although Judge Helmick has been my sponsor, I have been following many other legal professionals who have explained many things about the federal courts. My Winterim is coming to an end pretty soon, and I've learned a lot. I'll reflect more on my entire experience next week.
I also had an opportunity to meet again with Annie Crawford, the jury selection manager (I first met her on 1-5-2015; see blog post "1-5-2015: First Day, Figuring Stuff Out). I reviewed some of the points from my jury selection reform proposal with her and asked for her thoughts on what I had so far. She was happy with what I had, and I am continuing to work hard on writing the proposal.
Today was also spent working on my presentation for Winterim Fair. I am planning an interactive presentation with the audience that also documents what I have done. I didn't talked in much detail for either the proposal or the presentation; I don't want to spoil it for what you'll see at Winterim Fair. All readers are invited to Winterim Fair, where I'll be presenting my experience learning about the court system. It will be on Tuesday, January 27, 2015, from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM at Maumee Valley Country Day School in Toledo.
Finally, I also worked on thank you emails to send to all of the legal professionals who have helped me and have taken me around. Although Judge Helmick has been my sponsor, I have been following many other legal professionals who have explained many things about the federal courts. My Winterim is coming to an end pretty soon, and I've learned a lot. I'll reflect more on my entire experience next week.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
1-22-2015: Juvenile Court
This afternoon, I met with Lori Olender, the Chief of the Juvenile Division of the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office. This means that she works at Juvenile Court. The Lucas County Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over all juveniles (individuals under the age of 18) who live in Lucas County, and I mean "who live in Lucas County." For example, if a juvenile who lives in Lucas County gets a traffic ticket in Los Angeles, they would contest it at the Lucas County Juvenile Court. There are many differences between how juveniles are treated and how adults are. She explained them to me, along with how the juvenile court works.
Ms. Olender explained that unlike the adult legal system, the goal of the juvenile court is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. It is not meant to intimidate juveniles, rather, the court serves to prevent juveniles from becoming repeat offenders. Studies have shown that juvenile offenders who are not rehabilitated tend to be in and out of the legal system throughout their lives, and this isn't good for the public, the court, or the offender. Because the goal of the system is rehabilitation, the prosecutor will most commonly recommend a juvenile to attend programs, halfway houses, or counseling, as opposed to locking them up in a detention facility. Although there is a detention facility on the third floor of the building that can house up to 100 juveniles, it only has thirty right now.
Programs that Ms. Olender explained are designed to help juveniles make better decisions. For example, if a juvenile is charged with assault because he or she gets into fights pertaining to disputes, Ms. Olender might refer the juvenile to anger management classes and counseling. Although there are many programs for all types of juvenile offenders, there is a limit to what the prosecution can do. If a defendant is given more than enough changes to make better decisions in programs, the prosecution may need to recommend a sentence of time to serve in the detention facility upstairs.
Other differences in juvenile court are how proceedings work. At an arraignment, a defendant will "admit" (to the charges) or "deny" (the charges). There is no "no contest plea" at juvenile court. This is due to the belief that if defendants admit to what they have done, it will be easier for them to receive help and for the court to rehabilitate them. Also, most cases go before a magistrate, and are closed to the public.
I then headed to a pre-trial hearing with prosecutor Drew Wood for a defendant charged with criminal trespass. Although the prosecutor has told the defendant that she should, the defendant still refused to admit to the charges. This led to Mr. Wood asking the magistrate for the trial date.
The juvenile system is very different than other courts, but it has to be different. Juveniles make mistakes, and when they do, they need to learn from them; they're kids. Unlike the adult system, the juvenile court is very supportive and the prosecutors "go easy" (compared to sentences that adults receive) on the defendants, and everyone tries to help the juveniles make better decisions. Because at the end of the day, the goal of the juvenile system is rehabilitation.
Ms. Olender explained that unlike the adult legal system, the goal of the juvenile court is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. It is not meant to intimidate juveniles, rather, the court serves to prevent juveniles from becoming repeat offenders. Studies have shown that juvenile offenders who are not rehabilitated tend to be in and out of the legal system throughout their lives, and this isn't good for the public, the court, or the offender. Because the goal of the system is rehabilitation, the prosecutor will most commonly recommend a juvenile to attend programs, halfway houses, or counseling, as opposed to locking them up in a detention facility. Although there is a detention facility on the third floor of the building that can house up to 100 juveniles, it only has thirty right now.
Programs that Ms. Olender explained are designed to help juveniles make better decisions. For example, if a juvenile is charged with assault because he or she gets into fights pertaining to disputes, Ms. Olender might refer the juvenile to anger management classes and counseling. Although there are many programs for all types of juvenile offenders, there is a limit to what the prosecution can do. If a defendant is given more than enough changes to make better decisions in programs, the prosecution may need to recommend a sentence of time to serve in the detention facility upstairs.
Other differences in juvenile court are how proceedings work. At an arraignment, a defendant will "admit" (to the charges) or "deny" (the charges). There is no "no contest plea" at juvenile court. This is due to the belief that if defendants admit to what they have done, it will be easier for them to receive help and for the court to rehabilitate them. Also, most cases go before a magistrate, and are closed to the public.
I then headed to a pre-trial hearing with prosecutor Drew Wood for a defendant charged with criminal trespass. Although the prosecutor has told the defendant that she should, the defendant still refused to admit to the charges. This led to Mr. Wood asking the magistrate for the trial date.
The juvenile system is very different than other courts, but it has to be different. Juveniles make mistakes, and when they do, they need to learn from them; they're kids. Unlike the adult system, the juvenile court is very supportive and the prosecutors "go easy" (compared to sentences that adults receive) on the defendants, and everyone tries to help the juveniles make better decisions. Because at the end of the day, the goal of the juvenile system is rehabilitation.
1-22-2015: Domestic Relations Court
This morning, Bonnie Rankin took me to explore the Domestic Relations Court. This is where individuals fight disputes involving divorce, child custody, and child support, among the many domestic issues that families may have.
Domestic Relations Court is very different compared to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Ms. Rankin was very patient in explaining to me these differences. For example, because there is no court reporter, jury, or public allowed during trials, most courtrooms where proceedings take place are considerably smaller.
You may have noticed my use of the term "magistrate" in previous blog posts, referring to Magistrate Federal Judges. Federal judges assign cases to magistrate judges to help ease their workload, and are allowed to have misdemeanor, but not felony cases. Similarly, there are magistrates (but not magistrate judges) in the Domestic Relations Court, but they are appointed by judges, conduct all hearings, try cases, but are below the judge. This means that the judge reviews all work done by magistrates. They are still addressed as "Your Honor" in the courtroom.
We watched a magistrate try a case involving separated parents fighting for custody of their two children. I don't think I'm supposed to go into much detail, but I'll tell what I can. The trial was rather unusual because the defendant went pro se (decided not to hire a lawyer), but otherwise, a trial in a domestic relations court happens just like a trial in a common pleas court. One party presented his witnesses, asked the witness questions, and the other party cross-examined the witness. Both parties then present evidence and give a closing statement. The difference is that instead of a jury reviewing the testimony and producing a verdict, the magistrate reviews the evidence produced and presents the decision.
Although it may not see like it, what happens in the courtroom is important and can cause major changes in families. In this case, the parents were fighting for custody over their children. I can't imagine what it would be for either of the parties to not have their children, and I don't want to think about how the children are affected by the decision.
Domestic Relations Court is very different compared to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Ms. Rankin was very patient in explaining to me these differences. For example, because there is no court reporter, jury, or public allowed during trials, most courtrooms where proceedings take place are considerably smaller.
You may have noticed my use of the term "magistrate" in previous blog posts, referring to Magistrate Federal Judges. Federal judges assign cases to magistrate judges to help ease their workload, and are allowed to have misdemeanor, but not felony cases. Similarly, there are magistrates (but not magistrate judges) in the Domestic Relations Court, but they are appointed by judges, conduct all hearings, try cases, but are below the judge. This means that the judge reviews all work done by magistrates. They are still addressed as "Your Honor" in the courtroom.
We watched a magistrate try a case involving separated parents fighting for custody of their two children. I don't think I'm supposed to go into much detail, but I'll tell what I can. The trial was rather unusual because the defendant went pro se (decided not to hire a lawyer), but otherwise, a trial in a domestic relations court happens just like a trial in a common pleas court. One party presented his witnesses, asked the witness questions, and the other party cross-examined the witness. Both parties then present evidence and give a closing statement. The difference is that instead of a jury reviewing the testimony and producing a verdict, the magistrate reviews the evidence produced and presents the decision.
Although it may not see like it, what happens in the courtroom is important and can cause major changes in families. In this case, the parents were fighting for custody over their children. I can't imagine what it would be for either of the parties to not have their children, and I don't want to think about how the children are affected by the decision.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
1-21-2015: Federal Law Enforcement
Photos:
The indoor parking garage filled with tons of border patrol cars
Old immigration records from the building's archives
A boat used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Lake Erie (in service)
Inside the boat
Today, we toured the facilities of some federal law enforcement agencies. Although doing so wasn't even on my mind when I sat down with Judge Helmick in September of last year to plan my Winterim, it was a good experience because I now have some more background of what defendants go through before they go to court. As stated last Friday, the United States government (represented by Assistant United States Attorneys) moves forward with a prosecution by receiving evidence from a federal law enforcement agency. The federal law enforcement agencies indict individuals almost like how local law enforcement agencies do (for more information for how the government moves forward with a prosecution, see blog post "1-16-2015: The Prosecutor").
Judge Helmick and I, along with Judge Knepp, Turner Booth, and John Sullivan, headed east to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Sandusky Bay Station in Port Clinton. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Housed in the Sandusky Bay Station are three CBP agencies: the Office of Air and Marine (OAM; often called the "tan guys" because they wear tan colored pants), the Office of Border Patrol (OBP; often called "green guys" because they wear green pants), and the Office of Field Operations (OFO; often called "blue guys" because they wear blue pants). They all have similar functions, but each agency has different "specialties." The OAM protects the border from the air and on water (Lake Erie). The OBP protects areas between legal ports of entry. The OFO meets individuals at legal ports of entry (these are the people stamping our passports at the airport).
The facility, built in 2012, cost $25 million, and is the first to house the OAM, OBP, and OFO in the same building. It mainly consists of offices, but it also includes a room to house search dogs and five short-term detention cells used for booking arrested individuals.
We talked to Border Patrol for a long time in particular about how to prosecute those caught being illegally present in the United States. Along with commentary from the two judges, they explained it's a fine line the government must traverse. The officers explained that if they apprehend individuals only on their first offense, they will usually deport them, with no further criminal charges against them, as it may not be in the OBP's interest to prosecute these individuals due to the cost and time-consuming nature of the process. However, if individuals repeatedly caught trying to cross the border with nothing to lose may face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. The officers work a lot with Assistant United States Attorneys to determine when they should prosecute individuals.
One of the Border Patrol officers talked about what they look for. He explained that they cannot profile individuals and jump to conclusions about their legal status in the United States, because they have arrested illegal immigrants from all over the world. The officers say that the automatic assumption is that illegal aliens in the United States are from Mexico is wrong and ignorant because the countries of origin list of arrested individuals totals more than ninety countries. Both explained that they instead need to look for behavior. For example, one of the officers said there is a difference between a man driving his two children to the ice cream shop and a group of twenty individuals walking down the state highway. Both of them reiterated that they have to look at whole portraits of individuals when they are suspicious of something, and not just physical appearance.
Today was an eye-opening day, a change from being in and out of courthouses from morning to afternoon. It gave me more perspective of what else happens in the federal legal system apart from the courts. I understand more what happens to individuals when they are apprehended by the Border Patrol. And finally, it showed me the difficulty that the Border Patrol, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and judges have in trying to find appropriate punishments to deter the same individuals from trying to illegally enter the United States.
The indoor parking garage filled with tons of border patrol cars
Old immigration records from the building's archives
A boat used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Lake Erie (in service)
Inside the boat
Today, we toured the facilities of some federal law enforcement agencies. Although doing so wasn't even on my mind when I sat down with Judge Helmick in September of last year to plan my Winterim, it was a good experience because I now have some more background of what defendants go through before they go to court. As stated last Friday, the United States government (represented by Assistant United States Attorneys) moves forward with a prosecution by receiving evidence from a federal law enforcement agency. The federal law enforcement agencies indict individuals almost like how local law enforcement agencies do (for more information for how the government moves forward with a prosecution, see blog post "1-16-2015: The Prosecutor").
Judge Helmick and I, along with Judge Knepp, Turner Booth, and John Sullivan, headed east to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Sandusky Bay Station in Port Clinton. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Housed in the Sandusky Bay Station are three CBP agencies: the Office of Air and Marine (OAM; often called the "tan guys" because they wear tan colored pants), the Office of Border Patrol (OBP; often called "green guys" because they wear green pants), and the Office of Field Operations (OFO; often called "blue guys" because they wear blue pants). They all have similar functions, but each agency has different "specialties." The OAM protects the border from the air and on water (Lake Erie). The OBP protects areas between legal ports of entry. The OFO meets individuals at legal ports of entry (these are the people stamping our passports at the airport).
The facility, built in 2012, cost $25 million, and is the first to house the OAM, OBP, and OFO in the same building. It mainly consists of offices, but it also includes a room to house search dogs and five short-term detention cells used for booking arrested individuals.
We talked to Border Patrol for a long time in particular about how to prosecute those caught being illegally present in the United States. Along with commentary from the two judges, they explained it's a fine line the government must traverse. The officers explained that if they apprehend individuals only on their first offense, they will usually deport them, with no further criminal charges against them, as it may not be in the OBP's interest to prosecute these individuals due to the cost and time-consuming nature of the process. However, if individuals repeatedly caught trying to cross the border with nothing to lose may face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. The officers work a lot with Assistant United States Attorneys to determine when they should prosecute individuals.
One of the Border Patrol officers talked about what they look for. He explained that they cannot profile individuals and jump to conclusions about their legal status in the United States, because they have arrested illegal immigrants from all over the world. The officers say that the automatic assumption is that illegal aliens in the United States are from Mexico is wrong and ignorant because the countries of origin list of arrested individuals totals more than ninety countries. Both explained that they instead need to look for behavior. For example, one of the officers said there is a difference between a man driving his two children to the ice cream shop and a group of twenty individuals walking down the state highway. Both of them reiterated that they have to look at whole portraits of individuals when they are suspicious of something, and not just physical appearance.
Today was an eye-opening day, a change from being in and out of courthouses from morning to afternoon. It gave me more perspective of what else happens in the federal legal system apart from the courts. I understand more what happens to individuals when they are apprehended by the Border Patrol. And finally, it showed me the difficulty that the Border Patrol, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and judges have in trying to find appropriate punishments to deter the same individuals from trying to illegally enter the United States.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
1-20-2015: The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals
Today, Karen Helmick arranged a tour of the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals and a meeting with the judges, located just down the street from the federal courthouse downtown. The students on the tour were Truth Foreman, Turner Booth, and me. Mrs. Helmick works at the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals as a staff attorney for Judge Pietrykowski. A staff attorney helps to draft opinions for the writing judge in these cases.
We got a tour of the one and only courtroom. Three judges (out of the five in the courthouse) are randomly selected by computer to sit on the bench at one time, and the decision is the majority of the three votes. For example, an appellant wins the appeal if either two or all of the three judges vote to overturn the decision of the lower court. Below is a picture of the courtroom.
Compared to the other courts I have been into, such as the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, this courthouse was very quiet. There were only two sets of footprints in the snow-covered sidewalk leading up to the entrance of the courthouse, one set those being Truth's.
After the tour of the courtroom and the staff attorneys' offices, we got to sit down with Judges Jensen, Pietrykowski, and Singer in the second floor conference room, where they were able to explain the appeals court better and take any questions that we had.
The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals hears appeals from the Sixth District of the Ohio Courts of Appeals. This includes eight counties along the Michigan border and Lake Erie. Either party involved in a trial from the state and county courts (common pleas and municipal courts) has the automatic right to appeal outcomes to the court of appeals, and most do. In doing so, the appellant will allow the judge to read over the case, or they may request for oral arguments. An oral argument is when the defense takes their case to the courtroom in front of the three judges. The appellant will have fifteen minutes to present their case, and the respondent will have fifteen minutes to present their case. The appellant can designate a portion of their fifteen minutes for a rebuttal after the respondent. When they present their cases, the judges will interrupt both parties and ask them questions. After the oral argument, judges will write their opinions and return with a decision on whether or not the conviction will be overturned.
I also learned that only one percent of the cases that are appealed go to the Supreme Court of Ohio. This means that for most individuals, this court is their only option for recourse.
During our meeting in the conference room, the phone rang. The judges said that phone has never rung before, but Judge Singer picked it up anyways. It was a wrong number. This prompted the judges to tell us joke about appeals courts, since they are so quiet: "Whenever the phone rings, it's either your spouse or a wrong number."
But on a more serious note, I now realize how important the appeals system is. The court of appeals reviews all of the lower courts' work and keeps them "in check." I think that the automatic right to appeal is an important right for defendants to have, because although most people have the best intentions, not all trials are done properly. Perhaps it's because a judge overrules an objection that shouldn't have been. Maybe the reason is because the jury wasn't unbiased. It could even be because of a different interpretation of a newly created law. This is where complaints like these are heard, and is a critical part of the Ohio legal system if it wants to maintain accountability and guarantee fairness for convicted defendants.
We got a tour of the one and only courtroom. Three judges (out of the five in the courthouse) are randomly selected by computer to sit on the bench at one time, and the decision is the majority of the three votes. For example, an appellant wins the appeal if either two or all of the three judges vote to overturn the decision of the lower court. Below is a picture of the courtroom.
Compared to the other courts I have been into, such as the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, this courthouse was very quiet. There were only two sets of footprints in the snow-covered sidewalk leading up to the entrance of the courthouse, one set those being Truth's.
After the tour of the courtroom and the staff attorneys' offices, we got to sit down with Judges Jensen, Pietrykowski, and Singer in the second floor conference room, where they were able to explain the appeals court better and take any questions that we had.
The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals hears appeals from the Sixth District of the Ohio Courts of Appeals. This includes eight counties along the Michigan border and Lake Erie. Either party involved in a trial from the state and county courts (common pleas and municipal courts) has the automatic right to appeal outcomes to the court of appeals, and most do. In doing so, the appellant will allow the judge to read over the case, or they may request for oral arguments. An oral argument is when the defense takes their case to the courtroom in front of the three judges. The appellant will have fifteen minutes to present their case, and the respondent will have fifteen minutes to present their case. The appellant can designate a portion of their fifteen minutes for a rebuttal after the respondent. When they present their cases, the judges will interrupt both parties and ask them questions. After the oral argument, judges will write their opinions and return with a decision on whether or not the conviction will be overturned.
I also learned that only one percent of the cases that are appealed go to the Supreme Court of Ohio. This means that for most individuals, this court is their only option for recourse.
During our meeting in the conference room, the phone rang. The judges said that phone has never rung before, but Judge Singer picked it up anyways. It was a wrong number. This prompted the judges to tell us joke about appeals courts, since they are so quiet: "Whenever the phone rings, it's either your spouse or a wrong number."
But on a more serious note, I now realize how important the appeals system is. The court of appeals reviews all of the lower courts' work and keeps them "in check." I think that the automatic right to appeal is an important right for defendants to have, because although most people have the best intentions, not all trials are done properly. Perhaps it's because a judge overrules an objection that shouldn't have been. Maybe the reason is because the jury wasn't unbiased. It could even be because of a different interpretation of a newly created law. This is where complaints like these are heard, and is a critical part of the Ohio legal system if it wants to maintain accountability and guarantee fairness for convicted defendants.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
1-18-2015: Some Photos
Throughout my Winterim, I have wanted to take some photos of where I have gone and what I have done. Unfortunately, various laws and courthouse policies have either prohibited or made me uncomfortable doing so. However, I was able to get some photos with no one in them. I hope that these photos help you understand more of what I am doing.
UPDATE: I found a picture of the federal courthouse online, and I'm posting it here. I don't intend to take a picture of the courthouse myself because there is scaffolding blocking the building due to construction.
The James M. Ashley and Thomas W. L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse at 1716 Spielbusch Avenue in Downtown Toledo; this is not how it looks right now because it is going under major renovations.
Judge Zouhary's courtroom in the federal courthouse, where his sentencing took place (see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing")
A sign leading to the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio, where Mr. Freeman works (see blog post "1-16-2015: The Prosecutor")
The United States Department of Justice's seal inside the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio, where Mr. Freeman works (see blog post "1-16-2015: The Prosecutor")
UPDATE: I found a picture of the federal courthouse online, and I'm posting it here. I don't intend to take a picture of the courthouse myself because there is scaffolding blocking the building due to construction.
The James M. Ashley and Thomas W. L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse at 1716 Spielbusch Avenue in Downtown Toledo; this is not how it looks right now because it is going under major renovations.
Judge Zouhary's courtroom in the federal courthouse, where his sentencing took place (see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing")
A sign leading to the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio, where Mr. Freeman works (see blog post "1-16-2015: The Prosecutor")
The United States Department of Justice's seal inside the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio, where Mr. Freeman works (see blog post "1-16-2015: The Prosecutor")
Saturday, January 17, 2015
1-17-2015: End of Week 2
The majority of my time this week was spent watching the trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. It was a good experience because I had the opportunity to watch the entire trial from start to finish. You can revisit any part of the trial by following these links below.
1-12-2015: Voir dire
1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies
1-14-2015: The Defense
1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Appendix to the Trial
One cool thing that I saw this week that I didn't talk about earlier was the courtroom during the reading of the verdict. When word spread that a verdict had been reached, all available prosecutors came into the courtroom. After the verdict was read, all of the prosecutors congratulated the prosecuting attorneys on this case, Frank H. Spryszak and Jennifer Lambdin, for a job well done, with many hugs and handshakes. Mr. Spryszak explained to me that prosecutors try to watch each other's verdicts to support each other. He said that although the prosecutors all have different cases, they have a common goal and work together in achieving that goal. This really showed me that the Lucas County Prosecutors' Office is very strong and has a lot of support and structure.
I have met many of my goals this week, listed below. If you don't believe me, you can click on any of the links to my blog posts pertinent to that goal.
My goals: Introduction and Overview
How courts in the United States work: Arraignments
Criminal arraignment docket in state court
-1-14-2015: Arraignments
How courts in the United States work: Trial
Closing arguments
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Jury instructions and deliberation
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Jury selection in state court
-1-12-2015: Voir dire
Opening statements
-1-12-2015: Voir dire
Presentation of evidence for the defense
-1-14-2015: The Defense
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Presentation of evidence for the prosecution
-1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies
Verdict
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
How courts in the United States work: Sentencing
Sentencing in federal court
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
Perspectives from legal professionals
The Honorable Vernelis K. Armstrong, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; how she sentences a defendant
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
Michael J. Freeman, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; a prosecutor's rationale for a defendant's sentencing and plea deals
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
1-12-2015: Voir dire
1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies
1-14-2015: The Defense
1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Appendix to the Trial
One cool thing that I saw this week that I didn't talk about earlier was the courtroom during the reading of the verdict. When word spread that a verdict had been reached, all available prosecutors came into the courtroom. After the verdict was read, all of the prosecutors congratulated the prosecuting attorneys on this case, Frank H. Spryszak and Jennifer Lambdin, for a job well done, with many hugs and handshakes. Mr. Spryszak explained to me that prosecutors try to watch each other's verdicts to support each other. He said that although the prosecutors all have different cases, they have a common goal and work together in achieving that goal. This really showed me that the Lucas County Prosecutors' Office is very strong and has a lot of support and structure.
I have met many of my goals this week, listed below. If you don't believe me, you can click on any of the links to my blog posts pertinent to that goal.
My goals: Introduction and Overview
How courts in the United States work: Arraignments
Criminal arraignment docket in state court
-1-14-2015: Arraignments
How courts in the United States work: Trial
Closing arguments
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Jury instructions and deliberation
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Jury selection in state court
-1-12-2015: Voir dire
Opening statements
-1-12-2015: Voir dire
Presentation of evidence for the defense
-1-14-2015: The Defense
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
Presentation of evidence for the prosecution
-1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies
Verdict
-1-15-2015: Closing Arguments
How courts in the United States work: Sentencing
Sentencing in federal court
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
Perspectives from legal professionals
The Honorable Vernelis K. Armstrong, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; how she sentences a defendant
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
Michael J. Freeman, Assistant United States Attorney for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; a prosecutor's rationale for a defendant's sentencing and plea deals
-1-16-2015: The Prosecutor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)