Essay on District Judge Tomee Crespin: Torres Vs Trivino

Introduction

This case was very interesting and kind of tricky to find in the courthouse because they kept changing the room number that they were in. This particular murder case was similar to the movies but had a lot of different aspects than the movies. Basically, there was a confrontation between two men while they were drinking and one person stabbed the other person. The defense moved to unreasonable doubt for 1st-degree murder and was able to note his charges on day 4 and five of the hearing. With the knife that the Torres used, he stabbed Trivino multiple times and the cause of death from the doctor's perspective was a homicide. There were a total of 15 people in the stands, 14 people on the Jury, 1 judge and 2 clerks assisting the judge as well as 1 stenotype operator. One of the most interesting things about this case is how the lawyers cross-examined the Travis, the doctor who determined what the cause of death was. At the end of the doctor still would not say if the cause of death was self-defense related or not because the blunt object to the eye was not sharp.

Each role of the court personnel was specific and it looked like with all of the different positions in the courtroom everyone was very professional and didn't say too much regarding the hearing. One thing that I noticed that was very different from the movies is that the lawyers used modern technology such as PowerPoint slides to show pictures instead of printing off pictures and blowing them up to show the jury. There was also a CCTV footage taken on the first day showing a man stabbing another after an argument but it was taken from far and therefore their images were not clear. Overall I had a great experience going to the courthouse.

The judge, prosecutor and others members of the court followed certain ethics during the criminal proceeding. I noted that they followed the constitutional rights of both the accused and the plaintiff. The rights to counsel, speedy trial, and protection against self-incrimination are aimed to protect both innocent and guilty individuals. During criminal procedures, the courts are required to follow them according to determine the criminal case. They start at the initial stages of investigations, arrests, arraignments in court, negotiation for pleas, court hearings proceeding, main trial, motions that carry on after the trials and questionings before sentence is applied (Neubauer & Fradella, 2015). I noted that the court did not delay this case for unreasonable reasons and they were in a hurry to analyze all the available evidence to prevent any delay. Torres could not afford an attorney and the state provided one for him (Allen, Stuntz, Hoffmann, Livingston, & Meares, 2016). The lawyer was not biased and did all he could to ensure that he proves beyond any doubt that Torres is not the person who committed the crime. These policies maintain justice administrations in courts. Another reason is that they protect innocent and guilty from discrimination during case preceding.

The research from the library is similar to the practical judicial proceeding. An individual has rights to a public court trial, and it should not be delayed for no valid reason. When police officers arrested Torres, they had to act fast and do all the investigations on the case without delays. In a public trial relative of the defendants should be allowed in the hearing. And he was not sentenced before the judge could prove that he was the one who committed the crime. The case should not be delayed for more than one year because he will be a violation of the defendants' rights to a speedy trial. During the trial, if a witness is asked a question that can incriminate him/her the amendment gives him/her rights of not answering the question. The imperial jury right makes sure the defendant's case is given a hearing by a non-biased party who will give a non-biased ruling (Whitebread, & Slobogin, 2000).

However, the prosecutor was biased in this case and I believe he wanted Torres to be proven innocent. A was present in most of the hearings and noted that he did not like Trivino based on his color. Trivino was black and comes from a poor family while on the other side, Torres was white and came from a well up family (Reiman, & Leighton, 2015). Torres was a close friend of the prosecutor and perhaps he was given money to ensure that Torres will be proven innocent. Racism is one of the major factors influencing criminal justice in the US and many have been proven innocent despite the fact that they were guilty. I was able to talk to Trivino lawyer and, he mentioned that he had prepared an eyewitness affidavit (Hartley, Rabe, & Champion, 2017). He had attached it to the case file but on the day of the hearing, it was missing. He was sure that the prosecutor had taken it out of the file. In this case, I noted that the prosecutor had violent the courts ethics and code of conduct.

The court listened to an eyewitness who was present at the same bar when the incident happened. I became attentive to see if there was truth to want John was saying. The prosecutor asked him to hold a Bible and swear that he will tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Afterward, he explained that on 7th August 2016, he was having a drink in a bar when two men started yelling at each other. He could not tell exactly what they were saying and before anyone drew attention to what was happening he Torres removed a knife from his jacket and stabbed Trevino. The lawyers from the two sides asked him few questions and he was requested to leave the courtroom.

The second witness was Travis, the doctor who examined Trevino and declared that the course of death was due to bleeding after being stabbed. After swearing to say the truth, Trevino's attorney questioned him about the incident. The doctor said that Trevino was brought to the hospital on 7th August 2016 while unconscious. After few minutes of examining him, he realized that he had lost after of blood which caused his death. The doctor insisted that the injury was fresh as it was from a blunt object like a knife. The doctor said that they performed a post-mortem to determine the main cause and, it proved that it was due to excess bleeding. The lawyer from the other side requested the doctor to explain how a blunt object would cause such injury and the doctor clarified that it had cut a vein.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judge listened to the conformities and the non-conformities to determine the sentence. He asked for a day to analyze the case and make his ruling. Trivino lawyer had presented pictures in a slideshow in a courtroom showing the incident. He also played a CCTV video footage showing two men who were arguing and afterward one falls after he is stabbed. The video was taken on the same day and during the same time that the incident happened. When the police arrived at the scene they did not find anything sharp or blunt that was used to injure Trivino. When the judge was ready to determine the case he argued that after listening to all the evidence and eyewitnesses who saw the start and the end of the incident, there was no doubt Trivino had died due to bleeding after he was stabbed. The judge also mentioned that the CCTV footage and PowerPoint pictures are non-contaminated evidence showing how the crime occurred. He also said that he has analyzed the doctor's report of the cause of death and have come to a conclusion that there was an act of homicide. There was nothing far from the truth because Torres had killed Trivino in cold blood. The judge found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment as the law requires.

References

Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2015). America's courts and the criminal justice system. Cengage Learning.

Whitebread, C. H., & Slobogin, C. (2000). Criminal procedure: an analysis of cases and concepts (p. 101). Eagan, MN: Foundation Press.

Hartley, R. D., Rabe, G. A., & Champion, D. J. (2017). Criminal Courts: Structure, process, and issues. Pearson.

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2015). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. Routledge.Allen, R. J., Stuntz, W. J., Hoffmann, J. L., Livingston, D. A., Leipold, A. D., & Meares, T. L. (2016). Comprehensive criminal procedure. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.