On (date) at (time) I, visited Clara ShortRidge Foltz Criminal Justice Center to observe a court trail.
When I got there I approached the reception desk and inquired from a Deputy on if, and which court room I could go to observe a court trial for class exercises. All the Deputies at the desk unanimously advised him to send me to the Grimm Reaper case on the 9th Floor. I got excited because I thought it must be a good case for them to send me there. Unfortunately when I walked in to the court room it was completely full with no room to sit or stand. I had no choice but to leave and look for another case. I then approached the Deputies at the 9th floor and asked if there was another case going on at the moment besides the Grimm Reaper case. They told me to go to 15th Floor room 130. When I walked in to the court room the trail was already in session so I sat down quietly and took out a notebook and started to make notes on the observations.
The case that was in session was a criminal case, Carlifornia v Wurth. The defendant, James Wurth had been charged with the offense of vandalism contrary to Section 4600(a) of the Californian Penal Code. According to the charges brought before the Court, the defendant had, on May 25th 2015, allegedly broken a cell glass door.
The aforementioned provision of the Penal Code prohibits all kinds of willful and intentional destruction of jail, prison or any public property in jail or prison. Moreover, it provides for a sentence of a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars and imprisonment of anyone convicted of the offense. It however, provides further that where the destroyed or injured property in question is valued at less than Nine Hundred and Fifty Dollars, the convicted person is to be held guilty of a misdemeanor as opposed to a felony.
The question before the Court during the particular trial was whether the defendant ought to have been charged with a misdemeanor or a felony. This paper addresses itself to the manner in which the prosecution and the defense addressed the above provisions during examinations in chief and cross examinations of prosecution witnesses. Besides, it critically analyses how the Prosecution, the Defense and the Judge executed their respective roles during the session.
At the time I entered the Court room, the Prosecution was presenting its case. The Prosecutor was carrying out the examination in chief upon Deputy Kataoka. He was making a foundation for the prosecution’s case.
Examination in Chief of Deputy Kataoka
He then had her explain to the jury what she had to do get it fixed. She stated that she placed a work order via a computer program so as to have the professionals come to fix it as is the norm. To this end, the prosecuting attorney was attempting to prove that the cell door was actually broken. I expected the prosecution to adduce a copy of electronic work order but they did not. More so, this would have been a perfect opportunity for the Prosecution to present to the Court evidence of the cost of the destroyed glass. This would have guided the Court on the issue as to whether it was proper to charge the defendant with a felony pursuant to 4600 (a) pc. The prosecution ought to have anticipated that the defense would definitely challenge the charges hence discharge the burden of proof accordingly.
When winding up, the prosecutor asked what kind of shoes the inmate was wearing and whether it did have thick soles like his shoes or less. She told the Court that they were lighter than tennis shoes. Interestingly, it was clear that the Prosecution Attorney did not anticipate such a response. He broke a cardinal rule of examination that we had learnt in class: ‘though shall not ask a question whose answer you know not’. The question proved to be counter-productive.
Cross-examination of Deputy Kataoka
The defense attorney began by asking Deputy Kataoka if one, officer Arechiga, made any contact with inmate Wurth. She answered in the affirmative. She added that the inmate became agitated and started pacing and screaming after speaking with Officer Arechiga. He further asked if the inmate might have been angry with the officer. She stated that maybe he was. The attorney sought to find out why no psych doctor or anyone was called since it is a module with mentally ill inmates. She said that they do not have psychologists in the jail.
The defense attorney told the Court that he had no further questions for the witness. It was time for the Prosecution Attorney to re-examine the witness to repair the damage done by the defense especially on questions regarding Officer Arechiga but he did not. The judge then ordered the next witness to be brought to the stand for questioning.
Examination in Chief of Officer Arechiga
The Prosecuting Attorney sought to find out the number of contacts he had had with the inmate and how those contact were. The witness explained that he had thirty contacts eight of which were offensive.
The Defense Attorney objected a lot during this part of the examination especially where leading questions were put to the witness. The judge would intervene to allow the questions and disallow in some cases.
Cross-examination of Officer Arechiga
I expected the defense attorney to ask the witness how he could have accurately remembered that the defendant had been offensive in eight out of thirty contacts he had with him but she did not. She instead went ahead and asked him if he had told Mr. Wurth that he had a family visit to which he replied that he did not. At this point the defendant spoke up and shouted: “he is a liar!” The Defense Attorney did not calm her client and apologize to the Court for her client’s misconduct. Instead, the Judge advised the defendant not to say anything but let his attorney represent him and speak on his behalf lest he gets into more trouble.
Then the judge adjourned the trial for lunch, having warned the jurors against discussing the case with anyone else.
In conclusion, it is suffice to note that the manner in which the trial was conducted failed my expectations with regard to what I had learnt in class. As critically discussed above, both the prosecution and the defense failed to adduce sufficient evidence through the witnesses that would found a finding that settles the issue properly before the court. So far, it was not possible to hold whether the defendant ought to have been charged with a felony or a misdemeanor pursuant to 4600 (a) pc. On the contrary, the judge executed his role fairly well. However, it was a rewarding learning experience.
Works Cited
Robinson, Rick. Foundations of Forensic Vocational Rehabilitation. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2014.
Samaha, Joel. Criminal Procedure. Stanford: Cengage Learning, 2013.
Selby, Hugh. Advocacy: Preparation and Performance. Sydney: Federation Press, 2009.
