'Courts of the Tampa Bay Area\r'

'This study bear on visiting homages and honor-abiding the tap exertion. I was to follow some(prenominal)(prenominal) bailiwicks and evaluate e re all(prenominal)y one’s behavior in the court way of life. During this period I vi internet sited two court room, lamentable arbiter Center at 14250 forty-ninth Street northeastern Clearwater, FL 33762 and the 501 twist in St. Petersburg at 501 maiden highway North St. Petersburg, FL 33701. I visited the court of laws on some(prenominal) occasions. aspect observations On June 16 2010, I visited the out fair play Justice center at 14250 forty-ninth street North Clearwater, FL 33762, at 2 pm. At the entrance of the courtroom thither was screening.Mobile phones were non delivered in the courtroom so they were to be left at the re exploit desk. It was non difficult getting into the courtroom as only photo credit was required. The room was half full and so finding a sitting sic was easy. It was a sorry fount, wh ere Mr. George Warren, the accused, was a rummy in a robbery at the bay harbor pool room. The figure was Justice Earl Logan. The mood of the court was quite relaxed. The seek was calm and followed keenly. On several occasions the gauge was rattling dynamical, curiously where the attorneys had heated arguments.The prove had to intervene and check-to doe with order in the room. As I l benefitt later that the proceeding was not splay to the journalist and this is the reason I attracted some attention from a juror, as I took some notes. The attorneys showed a great caboodle of respect to their thickening although the complainant’s attorney was very intimidating. The try out did not feign this lightly and cautioned the attorney against such(prenominal) action. The defendant’s attorney defended his client against such intimidation bellicosely. He refused to allow his client to be asked questions revolving around his in-person life except where they were relevant .They attorneys seek the pass judgment’s intervention where they felt up that their client was beingness harassed. The infer asked the clients questions where he felt was necessary, or ordered them to resolvent questions if the chose to tarry silent. The defendant and his attorney were alive(p) while the complainant appeargond relaxed. This is because the narrate that was brought forward the court was very strong and could earn him more(prenominal) than five years imprisonment. The defendant was a clerk and frequented the pool room. both of them seemed to follow and understand the transactions.The defendant was even so very c arful when answering the questions because he would take some time to begin with replying. The disposition of the font was that the defendant was not guilty. This is because he was found near the site with some pints of wine and some pitch in his pocket. The bear witness produced was not authentic and teeming for the defend ant to face every sentence. The witnesses who testified in the episode did give all data that linked the defendant to the detestation. The complainant failed to move the court that the accused was in that locationfore the thief.There was no finger print outfit and the defendant had an evident alibi. During the time of thievery the defendant was at another local anaesthetic joint alcoholism. The time spent on the national was not prospicient exclusively was enough because there was no enough yard to imprison the defendant. The disposition of the vitrine was fair. There was happen evidence that the defendant was not involved in the criminal offence, and if there was the complainant failed to produce it. According to the law the defendant was supposed to be even up free until or unless there was more clear evidence . Analysis The courts precinct was calm.There was a beneficial protection measures check for restless phones, cameras and any form of weapons. This sc ale was not hold to the media and this is the reason why they were so strict on the issue of any cameras or recording material. This was similarly a security department to ensure the safety of everyone in the courtroom. Being an afternoon during a operate ons day most volume were at their places of work and so most of those in the room were close to the clients. The mood was relaxed. The topic had little tension and this is the reason why the judge appeared calm although he was very attentive.In some instances the clients chose not to answer questions and the judge had to intervene and force them to answer the questions. This is because the evidence tabled was not enough and any information that the judge felt was relevant had to be given . The attorneys were however very aggressive, distri only ifively trying to defend the evidence produced by their clients. The plaintiff showed no signs of providing more evidence against the defendant and relied solely on the occurrence th at the defendant was found close to the crime scene when the police were called.The defendant claimed that he had precisely left another drinking joint and was on his way home. This field was very sensitive and the judge had to take note of all the important flesh out and ask questions where clarification was needed, failure to which a wrong judgment would have been make . He was able to move up his claims to the court. The fingerprints from the crime scene did not match his, clear evidence that he was just a eggshell of mistaken identity. This made the transactions very quick and the consultation and the proceeding did not take a long duration.The evidence produced by the plaintiff did not link directly to the defendant. The could only prove that he was a suspect because he had some pints of wine and also being near the pool room however no proof of his presence in it. The comparison The courtrooms I visited had some differences and similarities. For face in some courtroom s you were allowed to access the room with a mobile phone but it should remain switched off, while in others one was supposed to leave any electronic gadget or anything that could cause upon at the reception.This is especially in those cases that had restrictions to the media. calculate for weapons was inevitable for security reasons. The judges had contrary reactions and moods depending on the case. If the case had a ring of drag there were heated arguments and the judge and the judges were very active. They would ask questions in some instances. In other cases the rooms had a bored mood and the judge could even fall asleep. The judge would remain uninvolved in the case. I notice this in a civil case the 501 building in St. Petersburg at 501 1st Avenue North St.Petersburg, FL 33701 on June 11 2010. The suit was filed woman and her agent maintain and the dispute involved the sharing of the family berth. They had deep divorced and the husband decided the married woman could only get a triplet share of the property. Un alike the origin case where the judge was actively involved by asking question and seeking clarification, in this case the judge listened secretivenessly without intervention. The judge only took down a a couple of(prenominal) notes and the rest of the time he just watched and listened . The facts and evidence produced were so obvious.Those who followed the proceedings were also very bored. The disposition of this case was that the property in question was to be overlap equally between the couple. The disposition of this case was so obvious and thus the quiet mood in the room. The attorneys were also very calm and did not show a good deal aggressiveness like in the basic criminal case. The only client who appeared active was the plaintiff, who on several instances had to be warned by the judge about her explosive behavior. In other instances accessing a courtroom could be very difficult.Only those involved in the case are allowed to access them. On the seventeenth May 2010, I attended the 501 building in St. Petersburg at 501 1st Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33701, where the case involved a limited company and a former employee. Only those who were involved in this case were allowed in. I however managed to convince the security team that I was a law student conducting a research and was allowed in. The restrictions were in favor of the company’s human race image, which was a leading company globally and could not risk the integrity. The judge looked serious and very involved.The room had very some people and tension was high. The attorneys were very aggressive and the judge was actively involved. The Jury followed the proceedings very attentively. The defendant was accused of violating the rights of the plaintiff a former employee in it, where the plaintiff was forced to work for more hours and was open fire without any definite reason. Like in the first case, the judge listened attentively and asked questions during the proceedings. The questions were to crystalise the issues that could be relevant in ascertain the case .The reasons stated by the defendants for their action was that the plaintiff was unproductive at work and showed some negative spatial relation. The defendant managed to convince the court on the negative attitude of the plaintiff but failed to prove his unproductiveness. The defendant claimed that on particular occasion the plaintiff did not report to work and had no reason a claim refuted by the defendant. virtually records that showed the employees attendance were missing; they could have been some crucial evidence. The disposition of this case was that the defendant was guilty.They were to pay the plaintiff an nub that was to be discussed by their attorneys. Unlike the first two cases this case took one calendar month to be decided. The hearing was made on the 25th June 2010. I attended all the three proceedings. The second proceeding was on the 4th June 2010. The fourth case was at the criminal Justice center at 14250 49th street North Clearwater, FL 33762. In this case the plaintiff was a younker man who was assaulted by a security guard, the defendant, at a domain facility. The hearing was held on July 12 2010. This case proceeding was open to everyone and the courtroom was very crowded.There was the frequent security check but not many restrictions. Security checks are a must at all the court entrances but the restrictions depend on the case and those who are involved. The judge was active. Her name was Justice Rene Raymond. The attorneys were very active with instances of heated arguments like in the first and third case. The security guard claimed that the young man was impress the normal. The evidence brought before the court and from the witnesses showed that the plaintiff had actually caused commotion in the public facility.The issue in this case was the assault. The judge argued that the plaintiff had actual ly caused disturbance to the people and thus the reason for the assault. Therefore the plaintiff lost the suit. This disposition was fair. There were similarities in these cases in that in most of the criminal cases the judges were very active since the involved so many details that had to be unveiled and clarified so as to make a sound judgment. The herd of the courtrooms however varied. The dispositions were based on the evidence produced and not just mere claims.This is because in a law court everything verbalize should be proved and a judge should not base the decision on blank claims. Conclusion The research shows that every case proceeding has its own procedures although others are similar. The issue of security is emphasized in all courts. In some cases members of the public are restricted, while others are open to everyone. The mood and involvement of the judge and the courtroom in general depends on the case. Some cases have so much pressure that the judge is very active a nd attentive. The decisions are based on the evidence produced before the court.REFERENCES Heumann, M. (1981). Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. dough: University of Chicago press. Samuelson, P. (1984). Good Legal pen: of Orwell and Window Panes. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 149 retrieved on July 12 2010 from http://people. ischool. berkeley. edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting. html Mauk, D. & antiophthalmic factor; Oakland, J. (2005). American civilization: an introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. Carmen, R. V. (2009). outlaw Procedure: Law and Practice. . Florence: Wadsworth Publishing\r\n'