US Legal System: Delivering Justice Through County Courts & Beyond - Research Paper

Introduction

In the United States, the courts and the entire legal system are usually designed with the aim of delivering justice. Whether it is a case involving a civil trial in which a plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant, or a criminal trial which involves accusations against individuals charged with committing a crime, the United States legal system uses different courts in its enforcement of the law. For instance, county courts are usually tasked to try relatively minor offense, whereas some capital and more serious offenses require the jurisdiction of federal courts. There are also circuit courts in which appeals are heard by superior courts processing the requisite jurisdiction. The United States courts usually allow the public to witness trials as a way of creating trust between the people and the legal system. Therefore, in order to familiarize myself with and to gain a better understanding of the working of the United States legal system, I visited a circuit court in Escambia County in the state of Florida.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

When I arrived at the courthouses, there were people already trying to find their way in. Our personal belongings were checked by the security guards at the main gate. I came to understand that this is usually a routine at the courts as a way of ensuring that the environment remains safe for everyone. Having found my way through, I obtained a list of cases that were scheduled for that particular day. I had the unique opportunity of witnessing several cases, however, I settled on a case between the State of Florida, who was the plaintiff and Javon Jaome Union, who was the defendant.

This particular trial which occurred on 15th November 2019 involved a defendant, Javon Jaome Union, who had been charged on two accounts. On the first charge, Mr. Union was accused of the crime of shooting at, within, or into a building. Likewise, on the second account, the defendant was accused of aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon. Given that Mr. Union, the defendant, entered a plea of not guilty on both accounts, he was tried, as a requirement under the federal constitution, before a judge and a jury.

The judge who was in charge of the case was a circuit judge, W Joel Boles. He wore the usual attire; a black along with a brown wig. His general presentation further reinforced the stereotypic idea that many Americans have about federal and state judges; always old and the majority are Caucasian males.

Following the English tradition, the United States juries are usually composed of 12 jurors. In this particular case, the members of the jury included five Caucasian males and two black males. The female jurors included three Caucasians, one black, and one Hispanic. The random selection of the jury for this case also ensures that all the members were of varying ages between 25 and 47. Although this model of selection is usually considered as a true representation of the society, it has often been criticized, especially in cases where all or most of the 12 jurors selected come from the same ethnic background. Even so, many have argued that the number is relatively large and should be able to neutralize any prejudice that may arise.

Once everything was settled, and the jurors are sworn in, the prosecuting attorney, who was the state attorney, began with an opening statement. He first welcomed the jurors and reminded them about their roles, which was to keenly weigh the evidence from both parties in order to decide on the facts of the case. On the paper, the terms and the facts of the case between the state of Florida and Javon Jaome Union seemed relatively simple and could be easily understood, however, for the jury, a little explanation and guidance was needed, which they received from the presiding judge. For example, although the charges indicated that the defendant committed a crime of shooting at, within, or into a building, the presiding judge explained to the jury that to decide on this charge, the state prosecutors had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Javon Union, the defendant, shot a missile that would produce death or great bodily harm.

Similarly, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime at a public or private building, and whether the building was occupied or not. Also, the plaintiff had the burden of showing the jury that the defendant's act was done wantonly or maliciously.

The defendant was also charged on a second account which was a crime of aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon. With these charges, the presiding judge also explained to the jury that the prosecuting attorneys had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to a member of the public, and in this case, Leslie Toney Knight. Also, considering these charges, the States also had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Javon Union at the time appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat. The State also had to convince the jury that the act of the defendant created in the mind of his victim, Leslie Toney Knight, well-founded fear that the violence was to take place, and if the assault was made with a deadly weapon.

Along with the original charges, the prosecuting attorney told the court that in the scenario that the evidence for the initial charges of which the defendant is accused is not convincing, he will provide other pieces of evidence indicating that the accused committed other acts that would constitute lesser included crimes. For example, besides shooting at, within, or into a building, the defendant committed the crime of discharging a firearm in a public place. Also, apart from aggravated assault, the prosecutor told the court that the defendant is guilty of improper exhibition of a firearm.

The defendant and the defense team entered a plea of not guilty, which gave the prosecutors the opportunity to present their evidence, and prove the crimes with which the defendant is a charged was committed, and that the defendant is the individual who committed the crimes. The defense team did not have the need to prove their innocence or provide evidence, however, they were able to object to false presentations from the prosecuting attorneys. For example, the prosecuting attorneys attempted to prove the possession of firearms through a random witness, however, the defense team objected to this issue citing that it is inadmissible in court since no one can prove eye witness. After back and forth arguments which included presenting and proving of evidence by the prosecutors, the final verdict was left for the jury to decide.

Given the pieces of the evidence that were shown in the court, and after listening to both parties, the jury was given a list of questions to answer based on the two accounts. On the first account, members of the jury were asked to determine if Mr. Javon Union was guilty of shooting at, within, or into a building as charged in the information. Similarly, on the first account, the jury was asked to determine if the defendant was guilty of the lesser included offense of discharging a firearm in public. Luckily for the defense, the jury found that, as to the offense charged in the information, Mr. Javon Union was not guilty.

On the second account, members of the jury were asked to determine the following. First, if the defendant was guilty of aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon as charged in the information. Secondly, the jury was to determine if the defendant was guilty of the lesser included offense of improper exhibition of a firearm. Finally, they were as to pass judgment on whether the Mr. Union was guilty of the lesser included offense of assault. The final verdict indicated that the jury acquitted the defendant of all the three charges. Consequently, the presiding judge also gave the verdict of not guilty, and the defendant was set free.

Overall, from my personal observation, I believe the case went well and the verdicts were rendered accordingly. The presiding judge gave a sufficient amount of time for both parties and equal opportunities to present their arguments. The judge also ensured that he only made the final judgment after he had seen the verdict of the twelve jurors. Also, I believe that based on the evidence, the jury rendered a proper verdict since it was unanimously agreed, and even supported by some members of the public who were present in court.

Even so, I believe that the prosecutors did not perform well. For instance, on the charges of shooting at, within, or into a building, the prosecuting lawyers failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, through evidence, that Mr. Union shot a missile that would produce death or great bodily harm. Similarly, on charges of discharging a firearm in public, the prosecutors failed to prove, through evidence, that the defendant knowingly discharged a firearm in a public place.

The prosecuting team also failed on charges involving aggravated assault and improper exhibition of the firearm since they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally and unlawfully threatened, either by word or act, to do violence to Leslie Toney Knight, or that the defendant exhibited a firearm in a threatening manner.

This trial experience provided me with a unique view of the activities within the courthouse, including the practices of the prosecutors, solicitors, judges, and defense attorneys, as well as their interactions with members of the public. Even though there are usually opposite parties in a courthouse, who are determined to disapprove of one another, members of the conflicting teams appeared to be positive and willing to work with each other and to ensure that the process remains smooth and carried out in the most effective way possible. I was also able to understand that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Ideally, given the statement of the charges, in this case, it seemed beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Javon Union was guilty, and on paper, any layman would have convicted him. However, the United States legal system requires evidence before convicting a criminal, irrespective of the charges involved.