For the criminal court observation, I viewed the Avondale Lockhart vs. United States case. My expectations of a full courtroom were precise. It took place at the United States Supreme Court on November 3, 2015 at approximately 10 a.m. The courtroom comprised of the eight Supreme Court Justices (John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan), the defendant and his attorney Edward S. Zas, Esq., along with Ann O’Connell for the prosecution, the Clerk of Court, the Court Marshals and a handful of spectators. Spectators were allowed but only on a first come first serve basis. This was not a jury trial, it was a Supreme Court oral argument; therefore
…show more content…
This made it easy for me to find my way around. I arrived extremely early to assure my seat in the courtroom. I was told to stand in line and wait for further directions into the courtroom. As the line began to get longer, we were seated inside the courtroom about 30 minutes before the case started. The organization of the court was very prompt and strict. After the justices arrived the case started immediately after. The case being observed was a criminal …show more content…
As I took notes during the argument, my personal interpretation of the case was that the defense continuously argued that because the statute involved stated, “involving a minor or ward” that the ten year minimum sentence would not apply to the defendant for the fact that the prior conviction involved his “53 year-old ex-girlfriend”. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that because there are three parts to the statute, “involving a minor or ward” only applied to one part (abusive sexual conduct) and the “sexual abuse” would apply to the defendants “53 year-old ex-girlfriend”. After doing more research after the case, I was satisfied to know that my interpretations were correct.
I expected a Supreme Court case to be difficult to follow along with having a strict courtroom, today I witnessed neither. I was surprised at how simple the facts of the case were and the number of humorous remarks given by some of the justices. Because this was only an oral argument I wasn't able to see the outcome the same day. By the looks of what I observed, the defense has a clear shot of winning as one justice described the statute as poorly
This made it easy for me to find my way around. I arrived extremely early to assure my seat in the courtroom. I was told to stand in line and wait for further directions into the courtroom. As the line began to get longer, we were seated inside the courtroom about 30 minutes before the case started. The organization of the court was very prompt and strict. After the justices arrived the case started immediately after. The case being observed was a criminal …show more content…
As I took notes during the argument, my personal interpretation of the case was that the defense continuously argued that because the statute involved stated, “involving a minor or ward” that the ten year minimum sentence would not apply to the defendant for the fact that the prior conviction involved his “53 year-old ex-girlfriend”. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that because there are three parts to the statute, “involving a minor or ward” only applied to one part (abusive sexual conduct) and the “sexual abuse” would apply to the defendants “53 year-old ex-girlfriend”. After doing more research after the case, I was satisfied to know that my interpretations were correct.
I expected a Supreme Court case to be difficult to follow along with having a strict courtroom, today I witnessed neither. I was surprised at how simple the facts of the case were and the number of humorous remarks given by some of the justices. Because this was only an oral argument I wasn't able to see the outcome the same day. By the looks of what I observed, the defense has a clear shot of winning as one justice described the statute as poorly