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

1-16-2015: The Prosecutor

My day began with a sentencing proceeding in federal court with Magistrate Judge Armstrong. The defendant was a Canadian citizen, and she attended the proceeding from Canada because she was unable to be present in the United States.

The sentencing began with the judge reviewing the defendant's charge of illegal entry into the United States. The facts surrounding the allegation were that she had previously entered the United States legally on a visa, but overstayed the visa and was deported. She then hired a pilot to fly her across Lake Erie in an attempt to enter the United States illegally. She was promptly caught and arrested, along with the pilot, and was charged with illegal entry, in her case, a misdemeanor. The defendant pled guilty to her charge. In between her arrest and court proceedings, she spent a total of sixty days in the Lucas County Corrections Center. If she was to be sentenced to jail time, she would receive credit for the days she had already served in jail.

The judge stated that the sentencing guidelines do not apply to her defendant's charge because she was convicted of a class B misdemeanor (for more information on sentencing procedures and sentencing guidelines, see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing"). The judge then began to talk about possible sentences. In this case, law allows a sentence up to six months in jail, a $5000 fine, supervised release, or any combination of those previous three options.

The defendant's defense lawyer said that he felt no sentence longer than sixty days would be appropriate, saying that her sixty days in the Lucas County Corrections Center was enough of a punishment. The prosecutor agreed that her sixty days in the Lucas County Corrections Center were enough, but he argued that she be fined $1000 in order to deter her from trying to illegally enter the United States again, as well as to deter others.

The judge sentenced her to sixty days in jail, with credit from time that the defendant had already served in the county jail, along with a $700 fine, to meet the interests of the prosecution and the defense somewhere in between. This means that she would serve no additional time in custody.

I met briefly with Judge Armstrong after the case, during which I asked some questions. She explained to me that many individuals think the courtroom is very intense and that the judge is impatient, as seen on the show Judge Judy. She disagrees with this, and says that the courtroom should be very civil and orderly place, with all parties being polite to each other. I agree with her, because in all of the courtrooms I have seen during my Winterim, the proceedings have gone very smoothly without any "courtroom drama."

After the sentencing, I had the opportunity to meet and ask questions to the prosecutor for this case, Assistant United States Attorney Mike Freeman. We first took a tour of the United States Attorney's Office. There are eight criminal United States Attorneys and four civil United States Attorneys in the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio's United States Attorney's Office. The criminal attorneys represent the government (prosecution) in trials. The civil attorneys represent federal government lawsuits against other agencies (for example, a lawsuit against a local police department for racial discrimination) and lawsuits against the federal government (for example, suing for damages after falling and getting injured in the federal courthouse. Obviously, because he was a prosecutor in the criminal case described above, Mr. Freeman is one of the eight criminal attorneys who works in the office.

I then sat down with Mr. Freeman in his office to ask him questions about the arguments that prosecutors make, including those in this particular case. I asked him about the sentencing recommendation he made to the judge. His opinion was that a sentence of some sort was necessary to reflect upon the seriousness of the crime the defendant had committed, in addition to the potential bodily harm she could have caused to herself and the pilot. He didn't ask for six months in jail (four of which would be additional months) because he didn't feel like she deserved it. However, his argument for the $1000 fine was for the deterrent effect for her and others and also to reflect upon the serious nature of her crime, trying to enter the United States illegally.

I moved on to prosecutors' arguments in offering plea deals. I began by asking why he didn't offer a plea deal at arraignment in this case. He explained the misconception that a plea deal is always offered at arraignment, but this is not always true. In this instance, the charges were not serious enough that there could possibly be a long sentence; this is why a plea deal wasn't offered in the case that I saw today. Mr. Freeman explained that about plea deals in general, many factors go into deciding whether or not to offer one. One possible factor is be the seriousness of the case; if a case has more serious charges, there is less of a possibility that the prosecution will offer a plea deal. Another factor he talked about is the criminal history of a defendant. The prosecution is less likely to offer plea deals to defendants with a criminal history.

Mr. Freeman told me that the best part of this job was that unlike other individuals in the legal field, he can do whatever he thinks is right. He doesn't have to represent a client, and only proceeds with a case if he thinks it is right to do so with enough evidence and probable cause. He is the one who gets to make the decision if it is unethical to proceed with a case or if the government should gather more evidence. It is his opinion, and it is not bound to anyone else's.

Finally, Mr. Freeman explained how the government moves forward with a prosecution. He first gets evidence presented to him from a federal law enforcement agency (such as the FBI, the Secret Service, or the DEA). He looks through the evidence to see if there is probable cause for a case. If there is enough evidence and probable cause, may he may then proceed with more investigative work (such as tapping phones and obtaining search warrants). When he is ready, he takes his case the grand jury. The grand jury decides whether or not to indict an individual. They must vote to indict (formally charge) an individual; if they do not indict on a case, no charges can be filed against that individual. If the grand jury indicts an individual, the defendant is called to court for an arraignment (for more information on arraignments, see blog post "1-14-2015: Arraignments). The defendant is now involved in the process with official court proceedings (for more information on trials, see page "Appendix to the Trial" for a list of blog posts about trials; for more information on sentencing proceedings, see blog post "1-6-2015: Sentencing").

I have met many goals today. I first saw another sentencing in federal court, but with a different judge. In addition, I had time to talk to her and get her perspective on this case. This pertains to my goal of learning how courts in the United States function. I then was able to meet with an Assistant United States Attorney to get his perspective on what arguments the prosecution makes in court and why they make these arguments. I have seen the perspectives of many individuals, and will sleep well this weekend after many late nights writing blog posts.

1-15-2015: Closing Arguments

See also: page "Appendix to the Trial"

Throughout this week, I will be attending a trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a rape case with Judge Zmuda presiding. This is the fourth and last in a series of multiple posts about the trial. Each post will document that day's proceedings and what I learned.

The defendant decided to testify in his own defense as a witness. Before he was able to testify, the judge had to make sure that the defendant understood that his agreement to testify meant that he would have to be cross-examined, which could potentially put case out of his control. The judge also made sure that the defendant knew he was agreeing to waive his right to remain silent and put it on the record.

The defendant's lawyer asked him many questions about the floor plan of the house and his interactions with the children in the family. The defendant was also asked about his history before moving into the victims' residence and what he did after moving out. He stated that he was living in Tennessee, unable to find work, and asked his cousin if he could move in with him in Toledo. After the defendant moved out, he relocated to California for a job. He later returned to northwest Ohio and subsequently moved in with his mother. The defendant was also asked about his role and responsibilities in the household, to which he responded that he was to babysit his cousin's six children and do some house chores. Finally, the defendant was asked about what the children's daily routine was.

During cross-examination, the defendant was asked many difficult questions, such as what exact events happened when he was alone with the six children, what happened when he and the children would watch movies on the couch together, and what the sleeping arrangements of the children were. The prosecutor also flat-out asked the defendant if he had ever inappropriately touched the victims, to which he responded no. The prosecutor kept asking questions about the charges and allegations pertaining to this case, all of which he continued to deny. The prosecutor found out that the defendant was aware of the charges against him after he returned to northwest Ohio, and stated that the defendant took no initiative to go to the police when he learned about the charges because he knew he was in trouble.

The defendant then testified on his lawyer's redirect. He was asked if he was under any obligation to go come back from California and if California is a faraway place. The defendant answered California is very far away, and that he was under no obligation to return to northwest Ohio; it was all on his own free will. When asked why he didn't make any inquiries to Washington Township police about his charges, the defendant stated that this was because the police didn't come to him and that he was never under any impression that there was an obligation to contact police. The defense then rested its case.

After a brief ten minute break, the judge read the jury its instructions. He explained that the jurors' job is to make a decision of the defendant's guilt based on the evidence presented in the trial and to apply the law to the decision they make. As stated before, until the state proves a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is innocent.  The instructions stated that the jury must consider the credibility of each witness to weight the evidence, and that a jury can choose to believe or not believe what a witness says. The judge also reminded that indictments against a defendant are not evidence. These were just some of the instructions that the judge gave to the jury, with many more other instructions that they had to follow.

Following the jury instructions were the closing arguments. Made to the jury, these are to summarize and reiterate the points of each side. There are three closing arguments: two from the prosecution and one from the defense. The prosecution always goes first and last.

The prosecution began by stating they had succeeded in proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just by the testimonies of the three victims. The prosecutor repeated the prosecution's view that the defendant was guilty. She explained how the defendant would be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the six counts by synthesizing and reviewing all of the relevant evidence for the jury to hear. She argued that the defendant was proven guilty by just the testimonies of the boys which corroborated each other, also stating that her victim witnesses were credible because there was no reason to make up the story and go through the unpleasant investigation system for nothing. During this time, she also refuted the defense witness's claim of "interview bias" (for more information about this, see blog post "1-14-2015: The Defense").

In the defense's closing argument, the defense lawyer reminded jurors to make sure the deliberation is fair for the defendant and to separate emotions and sympathy for victims from the actual evidence; as the defense lawyer stated, emotions and sympathy are not evidence. He cited the victims' mother's testimony on Tuesday in which she said she was mad at herself for not having seen the signs that her sons were being abused; the defense lawyer stated that if she didn't see the signs, it could be because the alleged events didn't happen. He also said that testimony from the physician specializing in child abuse was extremely inconclusive, saying that he only made the diagnosis based on the victims' interviews at children services and that a lack of physical evidence from the children from the anal examination renders his testimony useless. Finally, he restated the errors that the children services staff member made in questioning the children, and argued there were many instances of interview bias, which changed and manipulated the answers from what they really were.

The prosecution ended the trial with their second closing argument, in disagreement with the defense's claims. The prosecutor restated to the jury that there were many testimonies and other pieces of evidence that corroborated each other. He dismissed the claims of interview bias as ridiculous, arguing there was no other interest that could have possibly influenced how the victims and their parents answered to the police, to children services, and to the court. Finally, the prosecutor reminded the jury of the physician's testimony that anal tissue is able to repair quickly and normally, which is the reason why he was unable to obtain any physical evidence. That was it. The jury was excused to the jury room to deliberate, and the waiting began.

Finally, after more than three hours of deliberation, I was informed that a verdict was reached. As read by the criminal bailiff, the jury found the defendant guilty on all six counts of rape. After the charges were read, the judge thanked the jury for its service, and court was adjourned. The trial was over. The defendant will be sentenced in the near future.

Today, I learned about how a trial ends, with closing arguments, jury instructions, their deliberation, and a verdict. Of course, sometimes, a jury doesn't end with a verdict, or they do end up with a verdict but it takes them days to deliberate. But the case today was that they gave a verdict. I also reflected upon the important responsibility that jurors have: to weigh the evidence and make a decision to which each and every juror must agree.

If you noticed, besides the use of the judge's name, no other names were used in any of these posts. Although one could easily learn the names of the victims simply by ordering a transcript from the Clerk of Courts of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, I have decided not to mention them out of respect for the family. More information on the case, such as the names of the parties involved, can be found on the page "Appendix to the Trial."

1-14-2015: The Defense

Throughout this week, I will be attending a trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a rape case with Judge Zmuda presiding. This is the third in a series of multiple posts about the trial. Each post will document that day's proceedings and what I learned.

The trial continued today after the prosecution concluded their presentation of evidence yesterday. This means that it was the defense's turn to present its case with evidence.

The defense began with a defense witness who is a clinical psychologist. After viewing some videos from children services, the psychologist made a claim that the staff member from children services made many mistakes in asking the victims questions. Although he stated that children are, to an extent, able to accurately describe past events, he argued that the staff member at children services didn't use best method of asking the victims questions about the alleged events. He also stated that there was a possibility of interview bias in interviews at children services due to how the questions were asked. In this case, it means that the interviewer unintentionally asked questions to the children in a manner that expected only specific answers, regardless of the question that was actually asked. An example of how this could happen is if the interviewer says "good job" after a question is answered, potentially biasing all answers after that comment from the interviewer.

The prosecution cross-examined the psychologist primarily by asking about his background, training, how much he gets paid, and an overview of forensic interviewing. Many questions were about methods and issues with interviewing a child victim, such as how to properly pose questions to child victims in order to get the most accurate answers from them. The prosecution also asked some more questions about signs of pedophilia. The prosecution didn't seem to be convinced about everything that the psychologist said about methods of asking questions and interview bias, and asked many questions during its cross-examination.

Yesterday, I said I learned a lot about prosecutors. But I also learned a lot about defense lawyers. This particular defense lawyer is also very articulate and careful, wary of any misstep. However, he was prepared. He took many notes throughout the entire trial. It looks like he knows what he's doing. It is very difficult to tell where the trial will tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see.

1-14-2015: Arraignments

Today, Judge Zmuda had a criminal arraignment docket full of individuals charged with varying offenses, from robbery, to domestic violence, to possession of illegal drugs. It took about an hour, and I learned how arraignments work in some more detail than what I had learned at the Toledo Municipal Court. Note that although the docket is called a "criminal arraignment docket," it does not necessarily mean that there are only arraignments. The only difference here regarding the arraignments was that the indictments against the defendant were felony charges, compared to municipal court indictments, which were traffic violations and misdemeanor charges (for more information about the difference between a municipal court and a court of common pleas, see blog post "1-9-2015: Criminal Defense").

If a defendant doesn't have a lawyer at the time of his arraignment, the judge will ask him if one should be appointed, if he is able to hire one, or if he would like to represent himself. Depending on the type of response given, the judge will then grant time for a defendant to hire a lawyer or the judge will appoint a lawyer for the defendant. Either way, the judge will then reschedule the arraignment for another date.

When the arraignment is ready to proceed, the defendants will be asked how they plead. A defendant may plead guilty, no contest, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity (for more information about how a defendant pleads during an arraignment, see blog post "1-9-2015: Criminal Defense"). At this time, the defendant may also request a pretrial hearing.

The court also heard cases of probation and community control violations. The defendants and their lawyers asked for another chance, arguing the defendant should have one by demonstrating that the defendant had been in good behavior along with other applicable evidence in attempt to show to the judge why the defendant deserves one.

There was a strange case of a defendant who had rejected a plea agreement, but changed his mind an hour later and stated to the judge that he would like to accept. Throughout the hearing, the judge was very clear in explaining to the defendant that by accepting the plea agreement, he would waive his right to a trial and appeal. He tried make sure that the defendant understood the terms and other pertinent information about the plea agreement before accepting his request. It remains unclear what prompted the defendant to change his mind about the plea agreement.

Finally, there was an interesting request from a defendant for his criminal record to be sealed for an offense that had happened sixteen years ago. He convincingly explained that sealing his record would permit better work opportunities for him. He also stated that the offense took place when, as the judge completed his thought, when he "was a different man." The defendant had changed a lot since the offense, with no new offenses. The judge said this is the perfect reason why defendants can ask to seal records. He granted his motion.

I enjoyed watching today's arraignment docket more than watching arraignments at the Toledo Municipal Court because I could better understand what was happening in the courtroom. This is because all of the parties were speaking loudly and clearly for others to hear. In addition, I have a copy of the entire criminal arraignment docket for this courtroom, and the proceedings don't seem to be as rushed as those in the Toledo Municipal Court. Because of this, I was able to keep up and learn more about what happens during proceedings like these. I now understand arraignments better than I did before.

1-13-2015: Witnesses' Testimonies

Throughout this week, I will be attending a trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a rape case with Judge Zmuda presiding. This is the second in a series of multiple posts about the trial. Each post will document that day's proceedings and what I learned.

The trial continued today with the prosecution calling witnesses to testify. Witnesses ranged from the three victims, to individuals in the household, to a physician who examined the victims, to a detective. When witnesses were called, they were first asked who they were, and questions moved closer and closer to what happened. Anything that a witness says is a response to a prosecutor's question or the defense's cross-examination.

The three victims are brothers, all under the age of ten at the time of the offenses, living in the same household with three younger siblings. The defendant is indicted on six counts of rape (two counts per victim), a cousin of the victims' father, and was living in the victims' family home for a short period of time in 2013.

The first witness of the day was the mother of the victims. The victims reported the abuse to their mother some months after the rapes occurred, which prompted her and her husband to immediately call 911, leading to a police officer being immediately dispatched to the family home. She became emotional when the prosecutor asked her to relive the day the victims came forward with the allegations. For reasons I do not know, many questions were met with objections from the defense, most of which were overruled and others that were sustained. The mother continued her testimony in stating that her children were extremely scared to report the abuse. She was extremely emotional throughout the entire duration on the witness stand.

After this, the defense lawyer cross-examined her, asking further questions, such as asking for more specific details when the police officer came to her house after calling 911. The defense lawyer also asked about the layout of her house, such as where specific rooms in the house were, such as the rooms where the abuse allegedly took place, in relation to the front door and the living room. When this was done, the prosecution called the next witness. The same process of the prosecution calling witnesses, asking questions, and allowing the defense to object to questions and cross-examine continued for the entire day.

There were many instances during the testimonies of other witnesses during which the defense objected to the questions asked, but I assume this is because the defense believes that the questions are inappropriate or irrelevant to the state's goal of proving the defendant guilty.

It was very difficult listening to the each of victims being individually questioned by the prosecutor, all brothers who were only nine, seven, and five years of age. I felt awful when they all said that the defendant had done something strange or bad to them. The oldest boy was almost trembling when he was explaining how the defendant took off his clothes, molested him, and warned him of the presence of consequences if he were to report the abuse. The nine year old's recount of the words that the defendant told him during the alleged acts were sick and frightening. He also told the court of when the defendant forced him to watch pornography on the living room couch with him. When the prosecutor asked the nine year old why he didn't report the abuse to his parents sooner, he said that he was afraid of the consequences.

The defense cross-examined all victims after their testimonies regarding topics ranging from when the victims' mother would leave the victims home by themselves to be babysat by the defendant, to the types of pets in their home, to once again, the floor plan and layout of the family home.

When a victim was testifying in the courtroom, there was a victim advocate sitting in the gallery at all times. She was always very supportive and patient of the victims, and escorted them in and out of the courtroom. I feel that this is an extremely important job when victims are needed in the courtroom because victims need to feel at ease and have a person they can trust so their time in the courtroom isn't as painful when they are asked to sift through horrible memories in front of others.

An interesting witness was a detective from Toledo Police assigned to this case, but he wasn't involved in the sex crimes unit. He was asked about his education and training, but after that, the prosecution then seemed to become more concerned of getting information about the capabilities of police to retrieve information from media storage devices, such as cell phones and computers. It seemed to me as if he didn't do much investigative work in talking to the victims, but instead did more work in trying to gather information from the defendant by electronic means. I will discuss this more at the end of this post.

An important witness that the prosecution called was a physician who specialized in pediatrics, child physical abuse, and child sexual abuse. The lead prosecutor asked him about his education, current job, and certifications. He also asked him about his other medical work and time in practice. The physician explained that he does medical examinations on children who have had physical and sexual abuse. The prosecutor went on to ask about what happened during the examinations of the victims, such as what the victims said and how they reacted during the examinations. The physician also described how such an exam would be performed. Another question the prosecutor asked was how a child abuse professional makes judgments on whether or not a child has been abused. Finally, the physician was asked to explain some psychological phenomena that go through the minds of victims of abuse.

One thing that I learned today is that prosecutors are very deliberate in their work and actions in the courtroom. They ask the witnesses questions that seem to have been carefully thought out and considered. They move at a relaxed pace and are not pushy in trying to get to the scene when the crime took place. They are extremely patient with witnesses and are able to get what they want in a nonaggressive way. I think that a difficult part of this trial is that the prosecutor had to ask questions to three victims that were so young. Nevertheless, she was good in getting the victims to relax by asking questions such as who was their teacher, what they wanted to do when they grew up, and their favorite school subjects. The younger her victim witnesses were, the more patient she became with them.

I have more unanswered questions today. During testimony from the police detective, there was discussion about the defendant's phone and pornography that was on it, but what was the importance and relevance of that content to the trial? A deputy sheriff was also called as a witness to give some testimony about a phone call that the defendant made from the county jail to another individual about the confiscation of his own cell phone, but I didn't understand why the prosecution wanted her testimony. What is the importance of the phone call from the county jail? These are questions two in my mind for which I will find answers tomorrow.

1-12-2015: Voir dire

Throughout this week, I will be attending a trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a rape case with Judge Zmuda presiding. This is the first in a series of multiple posts about the trial. Each post will document that day's proceedings and what I learned.

The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is often called state court, because individuals in this court are charged with state crimes. There is one common pleas court per county in the state of Ohio. This is a comparison between the federal court, in which individuals are charged with federal crimes.

All trials begin with a process called voir dire, which when the jury selected. The term voir dire comes from Old French meaning "to speak the truth" (side note: many individuals told me that this term comes from French when it actually comes from Old French; voir dire actually translates to "to see and say" in Modern French, which left me confused and thinking they were all wrong until I just now searched it).

The jury selection begins when all prospective jurors enter the courtroom and are sworn in. The prosecution and the defense then introduce themselves. Right away, Judge Zmuda begins to ask questions, starting with if jurors know individuals from either of the parties. The judge then reads the defendant's charges and asks the jurors if there is anything that may prevent them from making a fair and impartial decision. This is the first of many times that Judge Zmuda will ask the jurors this question. I see that although not much has happened, I already see prospective jurors becoming emotional from thinking of their past experiences when being asked what is the reason why they are unable to make a fair and impartial decision. This results in the excusal of three prospective jurors.

Judge Zmuda continued by reading names of witnesses, victims, and other individuals involved in the case, and asked the prospective jurors if they knew these individuals. Another question that the judge asked was if individuals had previously served on a jury, and if so, he asked for details regarding the trial. During all of the questioning, both the prosecution and the defense are taking careful notes of each individual and are thinking of questions that they would later ask.

The questions moved on to family to see if any individuals or their family members have ever been victims of a similar crime, have been arrested for a similar charge, or have ever worked for a law enforcement agency. Although they seemed to become very intimate, Judge Zmuda explained to jurors that although he wishes to respect privacy, he is doing his job in asking these questions and needs to do so to uncover any potential bias for either party.

The judge continued and asked about the personal lives of individuals, regarding if they have kids, where they work, their family, if they are married, what amount of education they have, and their age. Although some individuals were hesitant to answer, Judge Zmuda promised to keep all responses about age between him and the court.

The judge did all of the asking of the questions for an hour and fifteen minutes, but after that, the prosecutor began to ask questions of the jurors. Directed towards the entire group of potential jurors, the prosecutor informed them of the defendant's rights just to make sure that jurors know they cannot hold anything against a defendant using his rights (such as the right to remain silent, right to have a lawyer, etc.). The prosecutor also explained to all prospective jurors that they must make their decision solely based on the evidence presented in court without speculation, and asked jurors to disclose if they felt they would be unable to do so.

After this, the prosecutor asked individual questions directed towards specific jurors based on their previous answers to questions Judge Zmuda asked. For example, a potential juror who worked in finances was asked about how he made banking decisions, in order to make sure that how he makes banking decisions would not affect his impartiality to make a decision during deliberation. After the prosecutor finished, the defense lawyer asked questions they felt were necessary to uncover any more potential biases about jurors and to make sure that they understood the concept of "a defendant is innocent until proven guilty."

One by one, throughout the entire jury selection process, jurors were excused based on answers to questions that may have affected a juror's ability to be impartial. Finally, after about four hours of voir dire, a jury was finally selected, and all jurors not selected were excused.

There are numerous rules by which jurors must abide. Jurors cannot:
-talk to other jurors until deliberation
-talk to others about the trial or parties involved in the trial until after a verdict is reached
-learn anything about the case through any means
-talk to anyone involved in the case
-tell anyone that they are on a jury
-have preconceived ideas about a defendant until deliberation
-speculate answers to questions that received an objection from the judge
Although these rules are very restrictive, I agree that they are necessary in order to prevent any bias from the jury in fairness to both the prosecution and to the defense.

Finally, opening statements begin. The prosecution goes first and makes the first opening statement. In fact, the prosecution always goes first because they have the burden of proof. The defense makes an opening statement. Opening statements serve to explain to the jurors what is going on, to focus the jury and remind individuals of their roles, and to give an overview of what each side will do throughout the trial.

After opening statements, the prosecution begins to call witnesses to testify in attempting to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I learned today that the job of a juror is extremely important, and that when individuals are summoned for jury duty, courts ask them to donate a lot of time and energy. I found out that the voir dire process is very important in order to find jurors who will be able to do their job of sifting through the evidence and deciding a defendant's guilt without their own personal bias interfering in the decision making process. I think that the concept that the jurors are completely impartial is extremely important, and all parties were careful to make sure jurors knew that a defendant is innocent until the state of Ohio proves his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the state has the burden of proof. This is such an important process because everything needs to go properly to make sure that each aspect of the trial is fair.

One part of today that I didn't quite understand was why it mattered exactly where each juror sat in the juror box. The bailiff didn't seem to assign seats with any pattern or reason, and I will ask why the seating arrangement of the jurors mattered so much.

1-11-2015: Week 1 Q&A

I have written about many different topics during the first week of my independent study. Some topics that I have written about may be difficult to understand because as Judge Helmick explained, many people have no need to understand the judicial system because the majority of the population neither files a lawsuit nor is charged with a crime. Therefore, I am holding a question and answer right here for those who may have some questions or would like clarification. Please leave comments with your questions, and I'll do my best to give you answers as soon as I can.

1-10-2015: End of Week 1

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!