So my first week learning about the judicial system! I have learned a lot in these five days, and I have connected a lot of what I already know to what I have seen.
One thing that I really enjoyed this week was getting a closer look into the work of lawyers. Ms. Wise and Mr. Rost have been really patient in explaining to me what they do and have opened up their offices for me to learn, explore, and participate. I appreciate the time that both of these lawyers have given to me.
One thing that I haven't explored much yet and still want to explore is the world of the prosecutor. Although I saw a prosecutor in action during the sentencing on Tuesday, I didn't have time to speak to her. I hope that meeting with one is possible, although my (already) tight schedule and plans for what to do during the next two weeks may not allow me to do so.
I have already met some of my goals as follows. I have gained more understanding on how the court works, from federal and state court systems, to arraignments and sentencing proceedings, to avoiding the court altogether in civil disputes with settlement conferences. I learned the views of some different legal professionals, from how a probation officer wants a defendant to be sentenced, to how Judge Zouhary made his decision on how to sentence a defendant, to the steps that Ms. Wise took in trying to protect her organization from lawsuit.
I have two more weeks with many plans on what to do, and I can't wait to see what I'll see!
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Friday, January 9, 2015
1-9-2015: Criminal Defense
Today, Peter Rost took me around various courts around the the greater Toledo Area. Mr. Rost is a criminal defense lawyer in private practice. He had clients who were defendants of many different charges, from domestic violence, to traffic violations, to resisting arrest. The only proceedings he had today were clients' arraignments and pretrial hearings, which took place in both the Toledo Municipal Court and the Sylvania Municipal Court. We began at the Toledo Municipal Court.
Many people call the Toledo Municipal Court "the people's court." This is because the Toledo Municipal Court receives cases that affect real people more so than cases that appear in the federal court. Cases are more "common offenses" than those that appear in federal court. Another nickname that the Toledo Municipal Court received is "little court," as Mr. Rost told me. This name was given by many of his clients because with the exception of preliminary hearings for felony charges, municipal courts are only able to handle traffic violations and misdemeanors, which are charges that carry relatively little weight.
My day began by watching arraignments. There are so many different cases that the court received, from traffic cases, to drug charges, to probation violations. We moved to different courtrooms, watching different procedures. Most of the proceedings only took two to five minutes each, and most of them today in all of the courtrooms were arraignments.
Arraignments are the first proceedings that defendants go through when they enter the legal system. They enter the legal system by being arrested or being told to come to court. This proceeding is when a judge reads a defendant's charges and asks how the defendant pleads. The options are to enter a plea of guilty, no contest (also called nolo contendere), not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. A plea of guilty means that the defendant admits guilt and will automatically be sentenced (for more information on sentencing procedures, see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing"). A plea of no contest means that the defendant accepts the charges but not the guilt. A not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity plea means that the defendant either denies the offense or has an excuse for the offense. Either plea results in a trial (trials will be discussed next week).
Mr. Rost had a client that he had to defend today for domestic violence charges and fleeing police. Mr. Rost thought that the best thing to do was to request an extension for his client's hearing today. I watched his proceeding happen, and his extension was granted.
Next was the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. This court mainly handles felonies, a more serious type of charge. Therefore, Mr. Rost's clients know this court as the "big court." Mr. Rost had no clients to defend, so he showed me around to the different courtrooms in the building.
Finally, we ended the day at the Sylvania Municipal Court. Once again, municipal courts can only handle traffic violations and misdemeanors, with all other charges being sent to a common pleas court. In the Sylvania Municipal Court, it was mainly arraignments that were happening, but Mr. Rost had two pretrial proceedings, both of which went well.
Although much of what happened today was difficult to understand because I didn't know what was going on, partly because I didn't know the cases and partly because I couldn't hear the judges and the defendants, I learned the roles of the different courts (a municipal court vs. a common pleas court), and I understand the process that defendants travel through much better now.
Many people call the Toledo Municipal Court "the people's court." This is because the Toledo Municipal Court receives cases that affect real people more so than cases that appear in the federal court. Cases are more "common offenses" than those that appear in federal court. Another nickname that the Toledo Municipal Court received is "little court," as Mr. Rost told me. This name was given by many of his clients because with the exception of preliminary hearings for felony charges, municipal courts are only able to handle traffic violations and misdemeanors, which are charges that carry relatively little weight.
My day began by watching arraignments. There are so many different cases that the court received, from traffic cases, to drug charges, to probation violations. We moved to different courtrooms, watching different procedures. Most of the proceedings only took two to five minutes each, and most of them today in all of the courtrooms were arraignments.
Arraignments are the first proceedings that defendants go through when they enter the legal system. They enter the legal system by being arrested or being told to come to court. This proceeding is when a judge reads a defendant's charges and asks how the defendant pleads. The options are to enter a plea of guilty, no contest (also called nolo contendere), not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. A plea of guilty means that the defendant admits guilt and will automatically be sentenced (for more information on sentencing procedures, see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing"). A plea of no contest means that the defendant accepts the charges but not the guilt. A not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity plea means that the defendant either denies the offense or has an excuse for the offense. Either plea results in a trial (trials will be discussed next week).
Mr. Rost had a client that he had to defend today for domestic violence charges and fleeing police. Mr. Rost thought that the best thing to do was to request an extension for his client's hearing today. I watched his proceeding happen, and his extension was granted.
Next was the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. This court mainly handles felonies, a more serious type of charge. Therefore, Mr. Rost's clients know this court as the "big court." Mr. Rost had no clients to defend, so he showed me around to the different courtrooms in the building.
Finally, we ended the day at the Sylvania Municipal Court. Once again, municipal courts can only handle traffic violations and misdemeanors, with all other charges being sent to a common pleas court. In the Sylvania Municipal Court, it was mainly arraignments that were happening, but Mr. Rost had two pretrial proceedings, both of which went well.
Although much of what happened today was difficult to understand because I didn't know what was going on, partly because I didn't know the cases and partly because I couldn't hear the judges and the defendants, I learned the roles of the different courts (a municipal court vs. a common pleas court), and I understand the process that defendants travel through much better now.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
1-8-2015: Why More People Should Just Settle
Although I'll tell you why more people should just settle rather than go to court to fight a lawsuit, I should first talk about the settlement conference I was able to sit in on today. For some background information, basically a settlement conference is an attempt for the parties involved in a lawsuit to settle on an amount of money (or some other terms). It is private; there is no court reporter present, and these are usually closed to the public. However, Judge Knepp was nice enough to let me sit in on his settlement conference today.
I am not allowed to talk about many specifics regarding the settlement conference, although I'll write about what I can. Note that I will refer to numbers and amounts with lowercase letters. It started out by not starting. This is because the plaintiff didn't show up, although lawyers from both the plaintiff and the defendant did show up. We finally began with the plaintiff attending via telephone an hour late. The plaintiff alleges the defendant violated her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rights. It ended up with the defendant offering to settle for amount x. However, the plaintiff insisted on receiving amount y. For the sake of legal fees and cost to go to trial, Judge Knepp suggested to the defendant to settle for amount z, which the plaintiff refused. The plaintiff refused to stray away from amount x, and it resulted in the plaintiff deciding to go to lawsuit. Unfortunately, because of the nature of this lawsuit, Judge Knepp expects the trial to be expensive for both the plaintiff and the defendant. He also expects expenses to be less for both sides if they could just settle.
So there you have it: most of the time, settlements cost less for everyone. Both the plaintiffs and defendants pay less in legal fees when they settle and get a more desired result. This is because both sides are able to talk out the problem and negotiate terms of the settlement, instead of having no idea of what a jury of strangers would do in a trial. This is illustrated in the following story. At lunch today, Judge Katz and Judge Helmick told a story of an individual injured from a train and automobile collision. Although an extraordinary amount of money was offered as a settlement by the train company in the lawsuit between them and the injured individual, refusal to accept the amount resulted in trial. However, the jury had a completely unexpected view of the case, saying that the train company wasn't negligent whatsoever, resulting in the injured individual getting no money. Legal fees also must be kept in mind, because many trials are expensive, in many cases, it may be cheaper to settle than to for either side to win.
But on the bright side, it was Cathy's (Judge Helmick's career law clerk) birthday, so there were bagels for lunch when I got back from the settlement conference.
I am not allowed to talk about many specifics regarding the settlement conference, although I'll write about what I can. Note that I will refer to numbers and amounts with lowercase letters. It started out by not starting. This is because the plaintiff didn't show up, although lawyers from both the plaintiff and the defendant did show up. We finally began with the plaintiff attending via telephone an hour late. The plaintiff alleges the defendant violated her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rights. It ended up with the defendant offering to settle for amount x. However, the plaintiff insisted on receiving amount y. For the sake of legal fees and cost to go to trial, Judge Knepp suggested to the defendant to settle for amount z, which the plaintiff refused. The plaintiff refused to stray away from amount x, and it resulted in the plaintiff deciding to go to lawsuit. Unfortunately, because of the nature of this lawsuit, Judge Knepp expects the trial to be expensive for both the plaintiff and the defendant. He also expects expenses to be less for both sides if they could just settle.
So there you have it: most of the time, settlements cost less for everyone. Both the plaintiffs and defendants pay less in legal fees when they settle and get a more desired result. This is because both sides are able to talk out the problem and negotiate terms of the settlement, instead of having no idea of what a jury of strangers would do in a trial. This is illustrated in the following story. At lunch today, Judge Katz and Judge Helmick told a story of an individual injured from a train and automobile collision. Although an extraordinary amount of money was offered as a settlement by the train company in the lawsuit between them and the injured individual, refusal to accept the amount resulted in trial. However, the jury had a completely unexpected view of the case, saying that the train company wasn't negligent whatsoever, resulting in the injured individual getting no money. Legal fees also must be kept in mind, because many trials are expensive, in many cases, it may be cheaper to settle than to for either side to win.
But on the bright side, it was Cathy's (Judge Helmick's career law clerk) birthday, so there were bagels for lunch when I got back from the settlement conference.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
1-7-2015: Private Practice, Poverty Law
Today, Turner and I were with each other again. The two of us spent our morning in the office of Patricia Wise at Niehaus Wise & Kalas. Ms. Wise explained to us that she does most of her work in employment law, and she tends to represent the side of the employer when she has cases. The case we looked at this morning was one in which an employee of an organization claimed sexual harassment and racial discrimination against another employee in a higher, supervisory position.
I learned that there are many factors that determine the steps that she recommends her clients to take. In this case, Ms. Wise first asked the organization to remove the employee in the higher, supervisory position from the job position in any way possible; this was accomplished through the employee voluntarily retiring. Next, Ms. Wise found out that the employee claiming sexual harassment and racial discrimination requested leave from her job. This factor prompted Ms. Wise to recommend paying in full for the employee's leave for as long as the employee in question wished. A side note: had the employee not asked and wanted for leave, Ms. Wise wouldn't have offered it. She just wanted to get anything that the employee wanted. Ms. Wise also recommended the organization to pay for the employee's counseling when she asked for it.
All of these recommendations that Ms. Wise gave were to avoid one thing: lawsuit. The organization is already at fault because the sexual harassment and racial discrimination came from one of its employees in a supervisory position over other employees. To me, it seemed that Ms. Wise wanted to make the plaintiff (the employee accusing the organization) as happy as possible so that the organization would be faced with an expensive lawsuit. This was a good example of a case that shows Ms. Wise's decision making process in what she would do when one of her employers is faced with a lawsuit from one of its employees.
Ms. Wise also talked about a case she had as a member of the Board of Professional Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court. She will be traveling to the Ohio Supreme Court later this month to decide this case in which a county bar association filed a complaint against a lawyer who had failed to deposit payment for a client's legal services in his IOLTA (a lawyer's client trust) and furthermore failed to provide receipts of payment to the client, thus resulting in the inability of the lawyer to refund his client after not actually representing his client. Although it sounds strange, the bar is self-policing by a board of its members. Ms. Wise explained to us that if there was no one to hold law license holders accountable for their actions, there would be disregard and disrespect for the rules by which a lawyer must abide. Therefore, the Board of Professional Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court is absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity and accountability of the Ohio bar and to hear grievances regarding its members when a party comes forward with one.
Later that day, Turner drove me to Downtown Toledo so we could talk to Joe Tafelski from the Center for Equal Justice, consisting of Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) and Legal Aid of Western Ohio (LAWO). Although we had less time there than the amount of time we had at Ms. Wise's office, I still was able to gain some perspective about the civil law services that the Center for Equal Justice provides for those who cannot afford lawyers. Mr. Tafelski said that because more individuals ask for help than they can accommodate, they are faced with no choice but to turn away two to three individuals for each one they accept. Services with which they help may include bankruptcy, divorce, employment law, child support, and unemployment benefits, just to name a few. I realized after talking with Mr. Tafelski that this is a very important organization because so many individuals need lawyers but are unable to afford one. The organization is really able to help those in poverty regain control of their lives with their free of charge civil legal services.
We ended the day by taking a tour of the Center for Equal Justice facility and visiting Legal Aid Line workers, ABLE lawyers, and LAWO lawyers.
All in all, today, I received perspectives of the legal system from two more individuals, and I still have many viewpoints that I need to see.
I learned that there are many factors that determine the steps that she recommends her clients to take. In this case, Ms. Wise first asked the organization to remove the employee in the higher, supervisory position from the job position in any way possible; this was accomplished through the employee voluntarily retiring. Next, Ms. Wise found out that the employee claiming sexual harassment and racial discrimination requested leave from her job. This factor prompted Ms. Wise to recommend paying in full for the employee's leave for as long as the employee in question wished. A side note: had the employee not asked and wanted for leave, Ms. Wise wouldn't have offered it. She just wanted to get anything that the employee wanted. Ms. Wise also recommended the organization to pay for the employee's counseling when she asked for it.
All of these recommendations that Ms. Wise gave were to avoid one thing: lawsuit. The organization is already at fault because the sexual harassment and racial discrimination came from one of its employees in a supervisory position over other employees. To me, it seemed that Ms. Wise wanted to make the plaintiff (the employee accusing the organization) as happy as possible so that the organization would be faced with an expensive lawsuit. This was a good example of a case that shows Ms. Wise's decision making process in what she would do when one of her employers is faced with a lawsuit from one of its employees.
Ms. Wise also talked about a case she had as a member of the Board of Professional Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court. She will be traveling to the Ohio Supreme Court later this month to decide this case in which a county bar association filed a complaint against a lawyer who had failed to deposit payment for a client's legal services in his IOLTA (a lawyer's client trust) and furthermore failed to provide receipts of payment to the client, thus resulting in the inability of the lawyer to refund his client after not actually representing his client. Although it sounds strange, the bar is self-policing by a board of its members. Ms. Wise explained to us that if there was no one to hold law license holders accountable for their actions, there would be disregard and disrespect for the rules by which a lawyer must abide. Therefore, the Board of Professional Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court is absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity and accountability of the Ohio bar and to hear grievances regarding its members when a party comes forward with one.
Later that day, Turner drove me to Downtown Toledo so we could talk to Joe Tafelski from the Center for Equal Justice, consisting of Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) and Legal Aid of Western Ohio (LAWO). Although we had less time there than the amount of time we had at Ms. Wise's office, I still was able to gain some perspective about the civil law services that the Center for Equal Justice provides for those who cannot afford lawyers. Mr. Tafelski said that because more individuals ask for help than they can accommodate, they are faced with no choice but to turn away two to three individuals for each one they accept. Services with which they help may include bankruptcy, divorce, employment law, child support, and unemployment benefits, just to name a few. I realized after talking with Mr. Tafelski that this is a very important organization because so many individuals need lawyers but are unable to afford one. The organization is really able to help those in poverty regain control of their lives with their free of charge civil legal services.
We ended the day by taking a tour of the Center for Equal Justice facility and visiting Legal Aid Line workers, ABLE lawyers, and LAWO lawyers.
All in all, today, I received perspectives of the legal system from two more individuals, and I still have many viewpoints that I need to see.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
1-6-2015: Sentencing
Today, Turner Booth joined me for the whole day to experience what the federal court would be like. It was nice that he was here because we were able to talk to each other about what was going on.
At 9:30 AM this morning, I watched my first court procedure: a criminal sentencing with Judge Zouhary. I took notes and I think I figured out the basic structure of how they work.
So just as an overview, a sentencing occurs as the last court procedure in a criminal case when either a defendant is convicted of one or more counts of a crime or a defendant pleads guilty (whether or not it is a plea bargain). Its basic structure is as follows:
-The presiding judge checks over the case and reviews to make sure there are no objections in the presentence report (the report written by the court that gives background information on the defendant to better assist the judge in making a decision on how to sentence an individual)
-The defendant recommends and argues for what the defense believes to be the appropriate sentence for the crime
-The judge reviews what the defendant says and asks questions
-The prosecutor recommends and argues for what the prosecution believes to be the appropriate sentence for the crime
-The judge reviews what the prosecutor says and asks questions
-The judge reviews all information (see below; a judge must make an "individualized assessment based on the facts presented")
-The judge gives the sentence
In his chambers today, Judge Helmick showed Turner and me a book called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. He explained to us that the sentencing guidelines were created in the 1980s, with the goal of similar sentences for individuals in the federal court system. When sentencing, judges would be required to adhere to the guidelines set forth in the book by using a system of assigning a "level" of the crime. One simply follows a table inside the book which points to the number of months a sentence should last. This is because before federal sentencing guidelines, sentences could widely vary from one side of the country to the other, despite the United States being under one, unified federal court system that is broken up into different divisions.
This is an interesting issue because of a 2007 United States Supreme Court case in which the court stated that district judges are no longer required to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. Actually, in a case, judges cannot automatically sentence an individual to that a number of months in prison calculated directly from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual by presuming that they are reasonable. The Supreme Court now says that judges must review facts from a case and must make an "individualized assessment based on the facts presented" for each and every case.
In this case, we got the perspective of the judge in trying to choose a sentence. However, we also talked to a prosecutor about the sentence that the prosecution wanted for the defendant. Although I am not allowed to talk about the specifics, it was very interesting hearing the two different sides in arguing for the best sentence for an individual convicted of a crime.
So here's an interesting question: is it good or bad that we have the sentencing guidelines? Would it be better to be adhering exactly to the sentencing guidelines or should we instead allow judges to use their own discretion in addition to the sentencing guidelines in imposing sentences? Regarding the former, sentences would be consistent, but would essentially remove a person from a trial, whereas in the latter, full thought and consideration is given to a defendant, but sentences wouldn't be consistent, and may arguably be said not be fair when two defendant who have committed the same crime will receive different sentences. Or should we even have the sentencing guidelines and are they even necessary? I have a poll running in the right sidebar where you can vote and tell me what you think.
So the end of another day. Even though it was only my second day, I feel like I am very on track in regards to meeting my goals (see "Introduction and Overview"). I have already seen the perspectives from different individuals involved in the legal system, and I was able to learn a lot about sentencing today. All of these have to do with getting an overview on the functions of the courts of the United States, and I feel good about what I have accomplished so far.
At 9:30 AM this morning, I watched my first court procedure: a criminal sentencing with Judge Zouhary. I took notes and I think I figured out the basic structure of how they work.
So just as an overview, a sentencing occurs as the last court procedure in a criminal case when either a defendant is convicted of one or more counts of a crime or a defendant pleads guilty (whether or not it is a plea bargain). Its basic structure is as follows:
-The presiding judge checks over the case and reviews to make sure there are no objections in the presentence report (the report written by the court that gives background information on the defendant to better assist the judge in making a decision on how to sentence an individual)
-The defendant recommends and argues for what the defense believes to be the appropriate sentence for the crime
-The judge reviews what the defendant says and asks questions
-The prosecutor recommends and argues for what the prosecution believes to be the appropriate sentence for the crime
-The judge reviews what the prosecutor says and asks questions
-The judge reviews all information (see below; a judge must make an "individualized assessment based on the facts presented")
-The judge gives the sentence
In his chambers today, Judge Helmick showed Turner and me a book called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. He explained to us that the sentencing guidelines were created in the 1980s, with the goal of similar sentences for individuals in the federal court system. When sentencing, judges would be required to adhere to the guidelines set forth in the book by using a system of assigning a "level" of the crime. One simply follows a table inside the book which points to the number of months a sentence should last. This is because before federal sentencing guidelines, sentences could widely vary from one side of the country to the other, despite the United States being under one, unified federal court system that is broken up into different divisions.
This is an interesting issue because of a 2007 United States Supreme Court case in which the court stated that district judges are no longer required to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. Actually, in a case, judges cannot automatically sentence an individual to that a number of months in prison calculated directly from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual by presuming that they are reasonable. The Supreme Court now says that judges must review facts from a case and must make an "individualized assessment based on the facts presented" for each and every case.
In this case, we got the perspective of the judge in trying to choose a sentence. However, we also talked to a prosecutor about the sentence that the prosecution wanted for the defendant. Although I am not allowed to talk about the specifics, it was very interesting hearing the two different sides in arguing for the best sentence for an individual convicted of a crime.
So here's an interesting question: is it good or bad that we have the sentencing guidelines? Would it be better to be adhering exactly to the sentencing guidelines or should we instead allow judges to use their own discretion in addition to the sentencing guidelines in imposing sentences? Regarding the former, sentences would be consistent, but would essentially remove a person from a trial, whereas in the latter, full thought and consideration is given to a defendant, but sentences wouldn't be consistent, and may arguably be said not be fair when two defendant who have committed the same crime will receive different sentences. Or should we even have the sentencing guidelines and are they even necessary? I have a poll running in the right sidebar where you can vote and tell me what you think.
So the end of another day. Even though it was only my second day, I feel like I am very on track in regards to meeting my goals (see "Introduction and Overview"). I have already seen the perspectives from different individuals involved in the legal system, and I was able to learn a lot about sentencing today. All of these have to do with getting an overview on the functions of the courts of the United States, and I feel good about what I have accomplished so far.
Monday, January 5, 2015
1-5-2015: First Day, Figuring Stuff Out
So my first day! It was a very mentally exhausting first day because of everything going on that I need to mentally grasp. There were so many different things mentioned by different legal professionals that I didn't understand. I've learned a lot today from just asking questions, but a lot still doesn't make sense, and I will have to continue observing day-to-day activities just to understand how normal, daily tasks in the legal world take place.
The day started with me meeting Judge Helmick and Dawn, his judicial assistant. Judge Helmick and I talked for a little bit about what would be happening during my Winterim before he took me to meet Judge Zouhary, a federal judge, and Judge Knepp, a magistrate federal judge. I was able to talk to each of them for a little bit before I moved on to the next thing this morning.
I had a one-on-one interview with Annie Crawford, the jury selection manager, naturalization ceremony manager, and financial deputy. Judge Helmick arranged me to interview her regarding her as the jury selection manager. This was really interesting and was an important interview, and my final project has everything to do with jury selection. I asked her many different questions about the whole process. She told me that potential jurors are nervous when they show up for jury duty, but they relax once they get settled. We discussed the new tweakings to the database that have increased the number of people who can be selected for jury duty. Before, only those who were registered to vote could be selected. Now, the database has been changed, allowing for anyone who has an Ohio driver's license to be sent a jury summons. Although this creates some issues, this does help to improve demographics of juries. Finally, we talked about who gets excused and disqualified from jury duty.
Judge Helmick, Judge Knepp, Sarah (Judge Knepp's law clerk), Sarah (Judge Knepp's law clerk), and I went out for lunch at the Oliver House. We had good conversations about interesting cases and previous experiences in the legal world. It was interesting to hear about Sarah's previous work (in the Attorney General's office) and Sarah's previous work (as an attorney for the City of Toledo). Lunch was a great time for me to hear informal conversations about issues taking place right now.
Following lunch, I sat in on a teleconference with Judge Helmick about a plaintiff composed of different companies seeking preliminary injunction from another company to which the companies are under contract. Sitting in the teleconference was Judge Helmick's law clerk, Cathy, whom I met then. I was able to understand some of what went on, and Judge Helmick cleared up the parts that I didn't quite get.
Afterwards, Judge Helmick and I took a look at my schedule some more to figure out what else I would be doing. And that's my first day.
I still have a lot more to do; after all, it was only my first day. Tomorrow, I will watching a sentencing procedure with Judge Helmick, a sentencing procedure with Judge Zouhary, and a change of plea with Judge Zouhary. I have no idea what to expect.
The day started with me meeting Judge Helmick and Dawn, his judicial assistant. Judge Helmick and I talked for a little bit about what would be happening during my Winterim before he took me to meet Judge Zouhary, a federal judge, and Judge Knepp, a magistrate federal judge. I was able to talk to each of them for a little bit before I moved on to the next thing this morning.
I had a one-on-one interview with Annie Crawford, the jury selection manager, naturalization ceremony manager, and financial deputy. Judge Helmick arranged me to interview her regarding her as the jury selection manager. This was really interesting and was an important interview, and my final project has everything to do with jury selection. I asked her many different questions about the whole process. She told me that potential jurors are nervous when they show up for jury duty, but they relax once they get settled. We discussed the new tweakings to the database that have increased the number of people who can be selected for jury duty. Before, only those who were registered to vote could be selected. Now, the database has been changed, allowing for anyone who has an Ohio driver's license to be sent a jury summons. Although this creates some issues, this does help to improve demographics of juries. Finally, we talked about who gets excused and disqualified from jury duty.
Judge Helmick, Judge Knepp, Sarah (Judge Knepp's law clerk), Sarah (Judge Knepp's law clerk), and I went out for lunch at the Oliver House. We had good conversations about interesting cases and previous experiences in the legal world. It was interesting to hear about Sarah's previous work (in the Attorney General's office) and Sarah's previous work (as an attorney for the City of Toledo). Lunch was a great time for me to hear informal conversations about issues taking place right now.
Following lunch, I sat in on a teleconference with Judge Helmick about a plaintiff composed of different companies seeking preliminary injunction from another company to which the companies are under contract. Sitting in the teleconference was Judge Helmick's law clerk, Cathy, whom I met then. I was able to understand some of what went on, and Judge Helmick cleared up the parts that I didn't quite get.
Afterwards, Judge Helmick and I took a look at my schedule some more to figure out what else I would be doing. And that's my first day.
I still have a lot more to do; after all, it was only my first day. Tomorrow, I will watching a sentencing procedure with Judge Helmick, a sentencing procedure with Judge Zouhary, and a change of plea with Judge Zouhary. I have no idea what to expect.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
1-4-2015: Preparing for the Winterim
I’m getting ready for tomorrow: my first day down at the federal courthouse in Downtown Toledo. I have no idea what to expect, but I’m actually not feeling stressed at all. Right now, the only work that I have to do is finish up my reading. When Judge Helmick and I met in September to plan what the Winterim would be, he assigned me what he thought to be good reading. This consisted of the following:
Article Three of the Constitution of the United States
In Our Defense: The Bills of Rights in Action by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy
Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen's Guide to Constitutional Action by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson
They have all been very interesting, giving me some background information about the job of the court, the importance of the jury, and some intriguing cases about the Constitution of the United States. That’s all I have to say today. I expect tomorrow to be a very interesting day filled with a lot of learning and exploration!
Article Three of the Constitution of the United States
In Our Defense: The Bills of Rights in Action by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy
Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen's Guide to Constitutional Action by Andrew Guthrie Ferguson
They have all been very interesting, giving me some background information about the job of the court, the importance of the jury, and some intriguing cases about the Constitution of the United States. That’s all I have to say today. I expect tomorrow to be a very interesting day filled with a lot of learning and exploration!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)