When a case is considered and a board renders a verdict, this is known as a court trial or jury trial. Every time a plaintiff brings a claim against a defendant, a judicial trial follows. The plaintiff's version and the legal doctrine must be stated in the complaint. Later, the plaintiff asks that the defendant be served with a summons from the court clerk. Thus, the assistant sheriff requests that the defendant be informed that a lawsuit has been brought against him or her. A judicial trial is scheduled to begin once all of these formalities have been followed. (Craig, 2011). The setup is a district court
. The trial witnessed is that involving violation of the constitution whereby a complainant rights have been infringed by a defendant. Some of the key figures involved in this trial were; the judge, a clerk, a bailiff, the attorneys of the respondent and the complainant, witnesses, court interpreters, and jurors (Mason, 2015).
Principles and procedures used in the trial
To begin with, the jury was selected from among the community members through an exemplary random method and agreement that involves the use of their voting cards. The panel of jurors was then signed to a court. In the court, the attorney gave an opening statement giving information to the jurors of what they will hear in the court case. The attorney described the case to the jurors and the court according to the complainant. The attorney told the story of the case and how they intend to use the evidence they gathered in support of the case and promised to present the evidence before the judge (Andrews, 2012).
I later learned that the evidence provided before the court is used to ease the burden of proof to convince the judges and take into account evidence full of weight and sufficiency (Ashworth, 2010). Witnesses were later called by the attorney of the complainant so as testify before the judge. The attorney of the complainant provided evidence of the case by the use of both witnesses and video surveillance. During the case, the plaintiff was faced with the burden of the truth. Cross-examination of the witnesses was done by both the attorney of the complainant and the attorney of the defense team, so us to enable the court to understand their relevance. The defendant attorney also did a direct examination by considering the witness in the defense team so as to affirm their argument in protecting and setting free the accused. During this procedure, the judge keenly listened to the proceedings of both the defense and the complainant team. The closing arguments were then given immediately after the cross-examination of the evidence. The defendant also got a chance to speak directly to the court. During this closing argument, I learned that there was nothing new introduced in the clauses and the proceedings. When both the cross-examination and direct examination of the witnesses were complete, the judge instructed the Jury on the very relevant laws that should guide them during their provision of the jury instruction. The jury instruction was given to the jurors to guide them in deciding the case (Gerston, 2014).
The jury’s decision was affected by the outcome of the trial. The jury being guided by the jury instruction. The jury consulted amongst the jury and the level of their understanding of the case and pass their verdict. During this court proceeding whereby the complainant accused the defendant of violation of his rights, the judge found the decision by the jury satisfying and thus upended the verdict to become the ruling of the court. The complainant in this case through his attorney was found to be so convincing and by the rule of law were abused based on their rights and thus won the case. The judge ruled in favor of the complainant and imposed fines on the defendant in compensation for his rights. The Judge then later adjoined the court proceedings and asked us to rise.
About my experience in critiquing the trial using the basic notions in (Barsky, 2012). Clinicians in court.
An expert witness is expected to remain non-defensive, calm and collected so as to juxtapose the expert’s objective opinion that in most cases were observed amongst the witnesses cross-examined. They seem to have been thoroughly prepared and maintained a high level of transparency as well as being very cautious in what they said before the court. As was by what was previously written in the book about the expectation of witnesses (Skolnick, J. H. 2011).
To testify in court in most instances involves expertise analysis with most attention directed to psychologists and health practitioners so as to cross-examine the act and presentation of the witnesses. This book also maintains that the attorney should be able to convince the jury to make a decision that will favor his client. That in this case, the complainant attorney was more convincing and fruitful in winning the case.
The significant similarity in the book and that of the actual practice of the law is that, firstly, the court procedures are the key to attaining justice. Secondly, the court room members are emphasized equally and lastly, the rule of law is paramount. Some of the differences encountered from the book and actual practice of the law are that in as much as the book maintains calmness and expertise regarding witnesses. Whereas in the real sense most witnesses involved in a scene are most instances not well versed with the knowledge regarding what is expected in the court (Drahozal, C. R. 2011).
Conclusion
To conclude with, the court procedures are essential in attaining justice and resolving conflict in our modern day society. What I witnessed during my time in the court, the district court was necessary enabling me to relate class work with the real court experience. It has therefore raised my expectation and the urge to be able to be a fruitful and a convincing attorney regarding word selection and argument(Fisher, 2014).
References
Craig, P., & De Búrca, G. (2011). EU law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.
Mason, A. T., & Stephenson, G. (2015). American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge.
Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2010). The criminal process. Oxford University Press, USA.
Andrews, N. (2012). Introduction. In The Three Paths of Justice (pp. 1-23). Springer
Gerston, L. N. (2014). Public policy making: Process and principles. Routledge. Gerston, L. N. (2014). Public policy making: Process and principles. Routledge.Netherlands.
Skolnick, J. H. (2011). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society. Quid pro books.
Baum, L. (2012). American courts: Process and policy. Cengage Learning.
Drahozal, C. R. (2011). Party Autonomy and Interim Measures In International Commercial Arbitration.
Cryer, R. (2010). An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, L. (2014). Constitutional dialogues: Interpretation as political process. Princeton University Press.
