Week 5: More Court Observations

Dain Y -

Hello everyone! Thank you for visiting my blog!

I will begin by speaking about the trial I observed last week in which I got to fully view both the defense’s witness direct and cross examination. Once again, though I cannot disclose specific details of the case, I would like to share a bit of what I learned.

Firstly, I got to understand that real life trials are a lot different than what you see on TV shows, haha. For instance, in TV shows, sometimes characters that play attorney’s may suddenly present a surprising piece of evidence that it seems the other side did not expect. However, opposing this, in real life both attorneys will have information of all evidence as well as arguments that will be presented during trial per the initial hearing / arraignment. This is where both attorneys will present any evidence or arguments they would like to use during the trial and must get approval from the judge to do so. Therefore, everything in court is very open and transparent, so to speak, for both sides. 

In terms of the examination, it was very interesting to see how structured the whole process was. While the defense attorney was conducting their direct examination, they began with questions that allowed the jury to fully understand the defense’s background. Not only did they ask specific questions about the incident that was being charged on, but even asked for as many details on the day, such as morning / evening routine, food, etc., as the defendant could procure. I later learned that this thorough guidance of how one event leads to another is to prevent an objection for “Lack of Foundation”. “Lack of Foundation” refers to evidence that, to all appearances, can be excused for irrelevance or lack of authentication.

As for upcoming days, in addition to reporting about my experiences in the office, I plan to spend some of my hours offline to read about more studies and articles related to my project’s main inquiry: how linguistic bias may affect the jury’s decision. Due to some personal circumstances, I believe it would be best for me to meet the court translator a bit later, but plan to possibly meet with a couple NAU Professors that specialize in linguistic bias, accents, or linguistics as a whole. So for upcoming days, you can expect a mix of both new information I found from my readings as well as more experiences from my internship!

 

More Posts

Comments:

All viewpoints are welcome but profane, threatening, disrespectful, or harassing comments will not be tolerated and are subject to moderation up to, and including, full deletion.

    Macabe Wood
    Hi Dain! How did your observations of the trial compare to your expectations, especially regarding the differences between real-life trials and TV show trials?
      dain_y
      Hi Macabe! Great question! While I haven't personally watched many TV trials / shows, I can certainly answer from the lens of what people may think to what the reality of a trial looks like! The first distinction would probably be the pacing of the trial. On TV, trials may often progress quickly, with dramatic moments and surprising revelations happening frequently. However, in real life, trials tend to move much slower, with procedural matters such as jury instructions, legal arguments, and witness testimony often taking up a significant amount of time. (And of course, many breaks in between). Additionally, the interactions between attorneys, witnesses, and the judge are very formal and restrained than what is typically seen on TV. While TV shows often feature dramatic confrontations and intense questioning, real-life courtroom proceedings are characterized by a more respectful tone.
    Amy Green
    Hi Dain, great post! What is the case load like for prosecutors in Flagstaff? Also, what percentage of cases go to trial? Do think the potential for liguistic bias may influence which cases go to trail?
      dain_y
      Hello Dr. Green! It is good to hear from you! I believe the case load for the attorney's office here is about 250+ cases per month. I am not sure the exact percentage that go to trial, but I do know a surprisingly large amount of them are sent back to the police department so that the police / detectives can collect more evidence before the office decided to charge it and send it to court. I do not think linguistic bias influences which cases go to court, as that is an issue seen in the jury on their perception's of witness's accents, and would not be something present in the attorney's office. I hope this answers your questions! Thank you.
    Edward W
    Hey Dain! I know I'm really late, but I still wanted to ask a few questions: could you describe how witnessing the direct and cross examination process during the trial was able to inform your understanding of the legal system? Do have any insights or findings from your research into linguistic bias and its effects on the jury's decision? And have you encountered any challenges or unexpected findings focusing along this line of research? Thanks in advance for your answers!
      dain_y
      Hi Eddie! Thanks for your questions. Witnessing the direct and cross examination process during the trial and observing attorneys present their case, question witnesses, and challenge opposing arguments informed my understanding of how evidence is presented and evaluated in court. It underscored the importance of thorough preparation and the strategic use of questioning to establish facts and credibility. Regarding linguistic bias and its effects on jury decisions, some insights are that studies have shown that factors such as the language used by attorneys and witnesses, can influence jurors' perceptions and decision-making processes. For example, the use of emotive language or persuasive rhetoric may sway jurors' opinions, while linguistic cues such as accents or dialects may unconsciously shape perceptions of credibility or trustworthiness. As for unexpected challenges, I haven't encountered any thus far thankfully!

Leave a Reply