Morgan Simpson Observation

The victim “Jane Doe” claimed that on July 22, 2021, her next door neighbor, Mr. Santillan sexually assaulted her while she was unconscious. The attorneys, judges, audience, and jurors all possessed unique communication patterns. These ultimately impact the decision of whether Mr. Santillan is guilty and showcases the standards of a trial. As a communication student from the University of California, Santa Barbara I was able to decipher these communication

In the case of Fare versus Michael C., the question at hand is whether a juvenile defendant requesting to speak with his probation officers was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The important issue was to dissect rather Michael C. requesting to have his probation officer present was equivalent to an attorney representation. When informed that this was not possible, he waived his rights and made admissions. In 1979, police officers arrested sixteen-year-old Michael C. involving him in a murder that occurred during a robbery in the victim's home. Since the age of twelve, Michael had been on probation and had a long criminal offense background.

(Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015)

Dustin Seal, a junior at Powell High School, Knoxville, TN drove his mom’s car to Friday-night football game with his friends who had put a knife in the glove compartment without his information. Over a suspicion of drinking alcohol, school vice principal searched Dustin’s car and found a hunting knife. Being unaware of the knife Dustin got suspended with pending expulsion from Powell high by the principal. Following with several appeal processes School board sided with the school principal on expelling Dustin. His father sued the school board for violation of Dustin’s right under fourth and fourteenth amendments to Federal court ruled in favor of Seal and the case was settled with $30,000 award to Dustin.

CSU Long Beach, Political Science Department at Long Beach Municipal and Superior Court, Long Beach CA Legal Apprentice and Researcher 1996-1997 • Conducted political research on the public defender system and provided analysis by viewing, discussing and summarizing judicial procedure(s) and Trial Judge, District Attorney, Public Defender to gain a better understanding of the efficacy of the public defender system on criminal proceedings in Long Beach and its need for key structural improvement. Accomplishments: After reading Gideon’s Trumpet as a context by which to explore and analyze the public defenders system and the social injustices that often occur, as reference by the main characters denial of his legal right to receive legal counsel in his defense in a Florida court; I related my reading and first hand experiences, observations and findings on the efficacy or lack thereof of the Public Defenders system to supervising professors at the CSU Long Beach, Department of Political Science in an attempt to suggest needed improvements to the criminal justice and judicial system. CSU Long Beach, Office of Affirmative Action - Long Beach,

David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.

In South Carolina v. Gathers (1989), the court had to decide whether a victim impact statement could be introduced if it related to the crime. Believing so, the prosecutor rather than the victim’s family presented to the jury personal attributes concerning the victim and how the family felt the crime and the defendant. The prosecutor also read from a religious tract that was in the victim’s possession. The major difference in Gathers and Booth is the manner in which the information was presented.

However, when the case reached the courtroom there seemed to be minimal focus placed on the actions of O.J. Simpson on June 12, 1994. The trial was deliberately turned into a charade for the entire country to witness; there has never been a spectacle such as the Simpson trial before, and there has not been one since. The defense turned the murder trial into a race riot portraying the lead detective at the crime scene, Mark Fuhrman, as a racist and discrediting the evidence by suggesting he planted it to frame an innocent black man (Bonesteel). The defense did a brilliant job of distracting the jury from the evidence against O.J. and bringing their attention to the racist failures of the LAPD. The spectacle the defense created in the courtroom would not have been necessary unless there was something Simpson was trying to hide regarding his actions on that infamous Sunday morning in

The court case I chose to outline is Payne v. Tennessee. This particular case deals with the use of victim impact statements in Capital court cases. The facts of this case began on June 27, 1987 when Pervis Tyrone Payne decided to visit his girlfriend, Bobbie Thomas, at her apartment, in Millington, Tennessee. Throughout the day Payne visited Thomas apartment in hopes of making contact with her, but each time no one was at the residence. On one particular visit, Payne decided to leave an overnight bag, containing his clothes, malt liquor and other personal items, in the hallway outside of Thomas’ apartment.

This case was the first case that the Court conclusively stated that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendants the right to a face-to-face meeting with the witnesses against them (Thuet, 1994). “Justice Scalia described the ‘irreducible literal meaning’ of the Confrontation Clause as the “’right to meet face-to-face all those who appear and give evidence at the trail” (Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)). When questioned about the fact that children witnesses can be damaged psychologically and also may fear the defendant, so that when taking the stand, their testimony might fall short of the truth. Justice Scalia stated, “confrontation may reveal a child witness who has been coached by a malevolent adult” (Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)). Expressing

but they were apathetic. The homeowners wanted to pursue the charges, during the court proceedings Mike was unaware of how the judge’s decision would taint his record for the rest of his life. Earley exposes his personal fears about his son’s health when he became excited about going to court: “Because I get to wear my new suit” said

Judge Richard Cappelli 201 W. Front St. Media, Pa. 19063 (610) 891-4042 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Cappelli, provided the following information: Judge Cappelli was a MDJ from November 1992 until he was elected to the Common Pleas Court in May 2014. Cappelli knows Judge Vann from when he was a MDJ and they would cover for one another over the course of time. Cappelli doesn’t know Vann outside of work, he never socialized with her. Cappelli vaguely recalls the circumstances involved when Vann called him and asked him to do an arraignment for her because she had some sort of conflict.

If the waiver was improper, the conviction was sent back to the court. If it was proper, then the act of being found guilty of a crime was sustained. Kent's lawyer filed the motion for the juvenile court judge to keep legal control over Kent's case to preserve treatment and rehabilitation he'd been on for the past two years. It was assumed that a hearing would be executed in order for Kent's lawyer to argue for his client, but NO HEARING WAS

The judge was very observant with the defendants and at times had a good sense of humor. He would often ask the defendants why they did what they did, and if they had ever thought about the position they were in, and what this might do to their children. The judge was very understanding and reasoned with most defendants. He wanted to get a sense of what the defendant was thinking, and often gave good advice to those he felt deserved it. He appeared very relaxed and at

Meanwhile, the judge noticed the amount of students in the room and asked him to give some background information to the case. I was extremely thankful for this and opened a new page in my notebook to concentrate from the start. I couldn’t keep up with the proceedings at all however and I was immediately lost in a language of legalese.