Daytime TV reality shows have become an important part of our society’s entertainment, legal and education system. They give us an impression of how exactly the real courtroom would look like and what we should expect in case we get embroiled in similar law suits. While some of the TV court shows are not real and involve fictitious characters such as judges, litigants, and court clerks, most of them like The People’s Court and Judge Judy involve real characters. The People’s Court TV Show, for example, has real parties who have instituted a civil case in a Small Claims Court but have decided to settle the case ‘out of court.' It is kind of an arbitration center where an arbitrator or a panel of judges hear the submissions of the parties and then make a decision on the most appropriate remedy to award the aggrieved party. As studied in class, the law impacts on business on an almost every day basis. Thus, every one of us at some point will end up as either a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit or an administrative hearing. Watching these Court TV shows helps enhance our perception of what to expect in an actual court setting as it enables us to compare our experiences in real court and from these shows. The purpose of this report analysis is to compare and contrast the two observations from a court proceedings and TV court show experiences and to discuss these experiences in the context of what has been learned in the course. For the purpose of this paper, selected episodes of The People’s Court TV Show and Judge Judy and a visit to Harris County District Court in Downtown, Houston, will be used.
Experience from Court Visit Live Court Observation
Identity of the Court: Harris County District Court in Downtown, Houston
Court Number: Criminal Court # 179 at 1201 Franklin, 18th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002
Court Location: Downtown, Houston Texas
Judge’s Name: Judge Kristin M Guiney
Parties’ Names:
Defendant: Reymundo Garcia
Plaintiff Attorney: Anthony Robenson
Defense Attorney: Paul Morgan
Experience from Watching Reality Court TV Show
Channel: YouTube
Online Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp2x_dGyUt8
This involves three cases heard together. The first case involved a defendant car part dealer who sold defective parts of low quality to the plaintiff who suffered additional charges to have them repaired. He was, therefore, suing in the Small Claims Court and in the People’s Court for a remedy for breach of contract through false misrepresentation and compensation for the additional costs incurred. The second case is about a plaintiff tenant (Roger Lucas) who rented a room from the defendant (Alicia Bennett) and later realized that the room was not habitable due to lack of electricity supply. He asked for a refund, but the landlord refused, leading to this case in which he is suing for $1600 for the return of a deposit. The third case in this video concerns a plaintiff, Arnold Stengel suing the defendant (Angel Rodriguez for $3000. Here, the defendant had sold the plaintiff a defective car to which he did not have a valid title to. It is the case of a junky truck in which the claimant is suing for additional costs he incurred for renovating the car since the defendant had assured him it was perfect.
A Summary of What I Saw/Heard from Reality Court Television Show
What I saw and heard in the People's Court is that the plaintiff bought car parts from the defendant who turned out to be faulty despite representations to the contrary as to their quality. The defendant denied this claim and counter-claimed that the plaintiff was negligent in mishandling the parts and therefore that she was not liable to pay him the extra cost of having the parts repaired. I also saw in the second and third videos the judge frequently intervening to ask the parties questions such as what they do for a living. She blasted the defendant for posing to know more about cars than he actually did.
Online Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4rFdUfk0Go
In this case, the plaintiff, Thomas Gardner, is suing the defendant, Douglas Hart, for stealing his ex-girlfriend's purse and then assaulting him. The case is taking place in Judge Judy's Court before Judge Judy Sheindlin. According to the plaintiff, he was with his girlfriend playing pool in a club. He then realized that her friend's purse was missing. When he asked about it, he broke his ankle. The defendant claims that it was a mistake, and he never intended to steal the purse. I heard the judge ask the defendant to explain to her how the plaintiff’s pucker book got into his hands. She told the defendant that his story was too difficult to believe. I heard the judge ask the plaintiff whether he has a police report of the assault claims. He handed one over to the court officer who gave it to judge. She ordered the defendant not to speak directly to the plaintiff. In the end, the presiding judge granted judgment to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay $5000. In another case in the video, the plaintiff, Ashley Hidalgo, is suing her ex-boyfriend’s brother, Mathew Reese, for borrowing her car and wrecking it. She wants him to pay her for the damage on her car. I heard the judge ask her whether she had been drinking and whether he had her permission to drive her car. I heard the judge argue that because the defendant took the car with the plaintiff’s permission, that it what insurance exists for and hence she cannot successfully sue up to this point. Judgment was given to the defendant.
A Summary of What I Saw/Heard during Live Court Attendance
In the hearing that day, 12 juries were presented. The two attorneys interviewed the office R. Lujan who first came to the crime scene. The officer was asked about his working background and what he saw at the scenes. Next, the plaintiff attorney continued to interview Officer Jason Culdon who investigated at the crime scenes for collecting evidence, taking pictures and videosThe office also is asked about education background, working experiences, working shift, knowledge about gun & bullets The attorney also showed the pictures and evidence (the bullet) that were taken at the scenes on the scanner that showed on three different big screen TVs around the room so everybody can see it.
My opinion and Evaluation of the Case, Judge, Attorneys, Witnesses, Juries, etc. in Live Court Setting
My opinion of the matter is that it represents a real depiction and portrayal of how our justice system works since it involved all the aspects of the legal system. I think the judge, juries, and the attorneys were very experienced in handling the case. The witnesses also conducted themselves professionally and helped the court in the unearthing the truth.
My opinion and Evaluation of the Case, Judge, Attorneys, Witnesses, Juries, etc. in Simulated Reality Court Television Show
My opinion and evaluation of the case are that though it is a fictitious portrayal of the justice system, it represents how exactly our courts work. My assessment of the judge, attorneys, witnesses, and juries are that they all help in finding out the truth in every case that comes before the court.
An Analytic Comparison and Contrast between the Two Observations and Discussion of Experiences
Firstly, court television shows despite being a realistic depiction of the American legal and judicial system; do create a false impression and expectation in the minds of viewers about the actual operation of the court system. It is, therefore, important to determine some of the ways in which this reality court TV shows differ from the real life courts to give parties the actual portrayal of how our courts, court system, and the litigation process work in reality. Reality Court TV shows are similar and different in several ways from the real court sittings. Reality television shows differ markedly from the actual court scenarios regarding the characters, parties, judges, ascertainment of fact and law and the arrangement of the court. They also differ regarding the manner in which they portray the way in which the legal system works. However, there are also some similarities between them that come out in the way the court sessions are conducted and how the parties conduct themselves during the court proceedings. Given that most Americans have not had any personal experience of the American legal system, the manner in which the TV court shows portray the justice system is important for both the individual's understanding of the legal system and for the legal system’s continued validity.
Comparisons
Contrasts
Another notable difference between TV court shows and actual court sessions is that there are lawyers in real courts but not in the TV court. In the real court, the lawyers represent the plaintiff or defendant and speak or argue the facts of the case and the applicable legal principles on their behalf. In the TV court, however, the plaintiff and the defendant have no legal representation and hence have to speak for themselves before the judge.
These similarities and differences between TV court shows and real court settings relate to several aspects that I have learned in this course. These include courts and alternative dispute resolution, court procedures, law and legal reasoning and business ethics. From the Crooked contractor case by Maly in The People’s Court, the concept of business ethics and the role of courts in ensuring such ethics come into play. From this case, it is evident that the defendant used misrepresentation to sell the plaintiff fake car parts which are unethical. This reality court TV shows depict legal ethics and how courts handle issues to do with professionalism and business ethics. Moreover, the People’s Court reveals how these courts act as alternative conflict resolution centers. This is because, in these courts, parties have actually instituted real cases in small claims courts but have come to this court to settle them out of court. These TV court shows and the real court settings also reveal the concept of the law and legal reasoning since the parties argue out their cases before a judge who then makes a determination based on legal reasoning, facts, and evidence. The case I watched about the car parts dealer disaster also demonstrates the concept of product liability since the defendant was held responsible for having sold the plaintiff defective car parts.
