CRM-260
Mrs. Patterson
1/5/13
Courtroom observation
The purpose of this paper is to show what I observed throughout the three hours that I spent in the Green County judicial courtroom number V. This was the first time that I had ever been in any courthouse and I felt like I was entering an airport terminal when I had to go through security in order to enter the building. When I first arrived the judge was not in the courtroom and we had to wait around twenty minutes for him to enter, when he finally arrived we all stood as he entered and the sentencing for the case of State vs. Raymond was under way.

In this case the prosecutor was seeking a twelve year prison sentence for the defendant. the defendant, Raymond was being brought up on charges for meth use and violating parole ten times. The defense attorney wanted a 100 to 120 day in-patient treatment sentence. His defense was that he had been conviction free for the last three years, in last few months he had paid quote “ several thousands of dollars in child support,” and lastly he has lately been focusing on his family more. I thought the reasons that the defense stated were not adequate enough to receive a 100 to 120 day in-patient treatment, and neither did the state. When it was the states turn to prove that his actions were in fact worthy of a twelve year prison sentence, it was a much more convincing argument. The main points that the prosecutor hit on where: he failed to find employment, failed to meet required service hours, operating without a license, and despite paying several thousands of dollars in child support he was still far behind. However, the most interesting point that I thought he made was that the defendant quit his job because of the likelihood that he would be going to prison. The prosecutor pointed out that his mens rea was that he knew what he did was wrong and he understood there were consequences for his actions. After both sides gave their case the judge ruled in favor of the state and sentenced him to the full twelve years in prison. I agreed with judges ruling, the defendant has been in the correction system numerous times and has been giving plenty of chances including rehab in 2010 and he never took advantage of the chances and opportunities that the state provided him. This was my first court case (outside of t.v) that I had ever witnessed and there were a few things that surprised me. The first thing that I noticed was that there was no bailiff or jury (when watching court cases on t.v I had always seen both of these). Next was that defendant never spoke a word to the judge, I later noticed that this was a continuing trend and throughout the whole time I was there not a single defendant said a word to the judge. The most interesting part I found in this case was after the defendant left the courtroom and the judge said “off the record” he then proceeded to scold the prosecuting attorney. The judge told the prosecutor that he his tired of always seeing them pick the “low fruit from the tree” and the distributors continue to make money and walk away a free man. I thought this was interesting because I thought the judge was on the prosecutor’s side because he granted the maximum sentence. But the scolding that the judge gave this prosecutor was nothing compared to the scolding that the next prosecutor received.

This case was State vs. Buchanun, this case was the most interesting to me because I did not expect the judges ruling at all. In this case the prosecutor wanted to sentence Buchanun to four years in prison for running from the police on a routine traffic stop which resulted in a high speed chase and ending with officers finding him hiding in his ex-girlfriends attic. The defense asked for five years of supervised probation and did not take long for the judge to take the side of the defendant. The judge quickly noted that the officer already had Buchanun’s plates and he knew he only had misdemeanor charges on him, knowing this the officer still chose to pursue the defendant in a high speed chase. The judge was extremely angered with the actions of the officer saying that the officer put many of innocent lives endangered just to catch someone who only had misdemeanor charges on him. The judge sentenced Buchanun to only two years of unsupervised probation. This ruling really surprised me because after the first court case I thought the judge would be strict in all his rulings. That being said I do agree with the judges ruling. The officer did make the wrong choice in chasing the defendant, it is no doubt that the defendant was in the wrong in fleeing the scene. However, the officer did put civilian lives in danger by pursuing in an unnecessary high speed chase, the officer had the defendants license plate and could easily of arrested him in a safer manner. The next court sentencing brought up a legal term that I had never heard before.

This case was State vs. Griffith, and once again it was focused on meth use and parole violation. It did not take me long to realize that just about every case had one thing in common, everyone had seemed to break their probation at least once. The defendant in this case was in his mid fifties and the defense attorney wanted Griffith to be enrolled in CRISP court because he felt that prison time would have zero effect in his rehabilitation. I had no idea what CRISP court was or meant until I looked it up after the court case. After some research I found that it stands for Court Reporting Intensive Supervision Program and that the drug court portion falls under CRISP 1. The prosecutor wanted to sentence Griffith to ten years in prison stating that at his age studies show if he was going to stop abusing drugs he would have done it by now. The judge sentenced Griffith to 120 day in-treatment followed by attending CRISP court. This was the only case where I did not agree with judge. I agreed with the prosecutor’s statement that the defendant was of the age that if he was going to stop using by now he would have already done so. I would have sentenced him to at least two years in prison and long term rehab. The last case that I saw also brought up another courtroom term that I had never heard of before.
This final case was State vs. Burtmen, in this case the prosecutor wanted Burtmen to be sentenced to five years in a state prison for drug charges, behind on child support, and fighting while being in the greene county jail. The prosecutor noted that the defendant was 19 years old, had three kids, and dropped out of high school after his freshman year. The defense responded that the defendant has had a series of mental health problems in the past and was not on medications while committing most of his offenses and for this reason the defense wanted Burtmen to attend a two week stay at sigma house. This was the first time that I had heard of sigma house and I had to look it up in order to see what it was. I found that the sigma house is a full-spectrum drug and alcohol rehabilitation center, the judge did not agree with that sentencing and instead gave Burtmen 120 days in-patient treatment followed by a psychological evaluation by a mental health ward. I agree with the judges sentencing because I feel that his prior history of fighting in the greene county jail puts him as too big of a risk to stay at sigma house. After spending a little over three hours observing six court cases I learned a lot about how the judicial system works and I got to see how it happens first hand instead of watching it through t.v. While being there a few things stood out to me and I picked up on a few trends.
The first thing that I noticed after sitting in the courtroom for a few minutes was how much talking and joking around was going on between the multiple lawyers that where in the room. Granted the judge was not in the room at the time but it was funny listening to lawyers cracking jokes about their defendants who did not show up for their sentencing (and this happened a few times). The judge surprised me as well, after a case would be finished he would say “off the record” and continued to share some funny stories or be joking around with the attorney’s. While there was a case going on it was all business. However, in between cases it was much more informal than what I anticipated. I am glad I got to observe a couple of court cases, it provided me with a lot of insight on how the American Judicial System truly works.