In open court

Representing oneself as a lawyer in court is known as self-representation or self-litigation. This practice is not advised as it can lead to more problems than advantages for the accused. Disadvantages may include unfair treatment in the court of law, misunderstanding due to minimal or no legal background, and a greater possibility that the court system will suffer in the process. It is important to be aware that most individuals who decide to participate in this practice do this out of great…

Normally, when you hear of someone convicted guilty and sentenced to prison, you don’t really think much past it. Or at least I didn’t. The justice system is responsible to do everything in its power to conduct fair trials and base convictions not on opinion but solely on evidence. However, this is far from the truth. Specifically, Tulia, a small town in Northwest Texas, is a prime example of a town who suffered from this courtroom injustice. Nate Blakeslee tells the town’s true story in his…

This reporting involves giving a testimony in a court of law. According to data (Virginia Law Review, 2009), there have been cases whereby reporting of false misrepresentation of outcomes by the forensic experts in courts of law without prior trials or analysis has led to wrongful convictions. This is a situation, Dutelle refers to as drylabbing. Forensic experts in contrast to attorneys…

the common people. Lastly, there is the possibility of giving the police the power to act as both the judge and jury, in order to get rid of criminals. The first way to possibly fix the justice system would be to replace the juries for a panel of court judges. The advantages of this would be that the…

There are significant issues pertaining to the ethical obligations and guidelines of a lawyer engaged in mediation. Lawyers are regulated by ‘the law of lawyering’, a collection of conduct and court rules such as the Professional Conduct Rules 2010 (WA). None of these rules are specific to mediation and instead act as ‘blanket conduct’ for legal representation as a whole. While the primary objectives for litigation include the resolution of legal disputes and the pursuit of justice using…

Did I really want to be what I’m going to school for? I didn’t always want to be an accountant. I used to want to be a wedding planner until I figured out I have no creative mind when it comes to designing the perfect wedding. If I can change my mind then, I can change my mind now. According to what I value I believe becoming a lawyer would be a possible career choice for me. When picking a career, I would have to determine what I’m looking for in that career, for example values. I have a value…

September 8,2016 Lawyer Lawyers are people that argue on your behalf on the court of law. Lawyers must provide evidence to prove their client is telling the truth. Lawyers must get witnesses and question the witnesses about their client to get information about what they did, what the client did, and what did the person did to cause the problem. Lawyers should come up with strong strategies and arguments to show the court that their client is innocent or to prove that they have evidence…

Introduction Henry II built the foundations of law as it sits today. Assize of Clarendon was an act that came in 1166 that transformed the English law. As trial jury was a way where evidence and inspection came before the punishment. Inquiry was my under oath by freemen. This shaped the new way of law in England. This act would be eventually known as common law. Why did Henry need a new way of dealing with crime? The Assize addressed many problems. When Henry II inherited the throne, he had…

opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.'" Seeing the 12 different jurors with different life experiences interpreting the same evidence and supposed facts of a case make the play a fascinating read. The play opens with a judge sending the jurors to "to sit down to try and separate the facts from the fancy."…

In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, several jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos,…