ROLE OF THE COURT REPORTER

What is voir dire?

In U.S. trial law, “voir dire” is the name given to the process of selecting jurors. The term comes from a Latin phrase meaning “to speak the truth,” and it is pronounced in several different ways in different parts of the country.

During voir dire, the plaintiff and defendant or their attorneys ask questions of prospective jurors in order to learn information about them. Although—to preserve their anonymity—prospective jurors are often referred to by number rather than by name, parties to a case and their attorneys are allowed to use the voir dire questioning process to seek answers to various questions.

Some of the most common issues addressed by voir dire questions are:

· whether a prospective juror has been a party in a similar case before

· whether a prospective juror has suffered a similar injury to the one the plaintiff suffered

· whether a prospective juror has any family members who have been in a similar case or suffered similar injuries

· whether a prospective juror has any experience with issues related to the case, such as insurance, medical training, or the design and manufacturing of certain products

· whether a prospective juror knows any of the people associated with the case, including the parties, their witnesses, the attorneys, the judge, or the court staff

The purpose of many of these questions is to reveal whether or not a certain juror has any biases that will make him or her unable to evaluate the facts of the case fairly. For instance, a juror who says that he believes most cops are corrupt might not listen fairly to testimony from an officer who responded to the scene of a car accident.

Many attorneys also use voir dire as an opportunity to discuss certain legal issues with the jurors. For instance, some attorneys will discuss the burden of proof that applies to the case in order to ensure that jurors understand, in a practical sense, what is meant by legal phrases like “by a preponderance of the evidence” or, in criminal cases, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” These discussions, which sometimes take the form of questions and answers, are used to help the jury understand the basic standard governing the case and to help the parties and their attorneys determine whether jurors understand the applicable burden of proof well enough to follow it in the case.

Often, voir dire is conducted in “rounds.” Each “round” consists of each party or the party’s attorney asking questions of the prospective jurors, followed by the judge asking each party or attorney if he or she wishes tostrike any juror. A juror may be struck “for cause,” because a law or court rule prevents that person from serving as a juror, or a party may use a “peremptory strike,” in which the party may dismiss a certain juror without saying why. Usually, parties are allowed only a limited number of peremptory strikes per case.

Once all the jurors who are seated in the jury box pass muster with all of the parties to the case without being struck, the jury is considered to be complete and the trial moves on, usually to preliminary instructions or to opening statements.

11.Is legalized selling of firearms able to ensure security or stimulate murder?

A firearm is a portable gun, being a barreled weapon that launches one or more projectiles often driven by the action of an explosive force.

The Constitution has reserved to the state the exclusive competence on issues related to the production, trade, possession, and use of firearms and explosives. In furtherance of this constitutional principle, regulates activities related to firearms and explosives, empowering the state to intervene in matters related to the manufacturing, sale, possession, and use of firearms, and includes penalties for violations of the regulations.The law establishes the restrictive character of the issuance of administrative licenses or permits for the use of firearms, especially when a permit is issued for self-defense, which is limited to instances of extreme necessity. It also empowers the government to regulate the prohibition of specific firearms, ammunition, and explosives that are especially dangerous, as well as their storage.

Gun ownership for self-protection, and defensive gun use, must be distinguished from other forms of forceful activity directed at criminals, such as private vigilantism, or the activities of the criminal justice system, such as police making arrests. All of these can be coercive and all may be done by armed persons. However, vigilantism and criminal-justice activity share a purpose that self-defensive actions do not--retribution. Whereas the criminal-justice system and the vigilante both seek to punish wrong-doers, the defensive gun user seeks to protect the bodily safety and property of himself and others. Retribution is neither an essential nor even necessarily common part of self-defense actions. Further, the vigilante proactively seeks out contact with criminals, while the defender typically reacts to actions initiated by criminals. The true vigilante acts collectively, in concert with like-minded individuals, whereas the defender ordinarily acts alone. It therefore is an oxymoron to refer to a defensive gun user as a "lone vigilante." Further, gun ownership is largely passive self-protection--once a gun is acquired, the owner only rarely does anything defensive with it. Only a minority of defensive owners actually use their guns for self-protection; most of the rest just keep the gun in a bureau drawer or similar location, where it is available for use should the need arise. This contrasts sharply with neighborhood crime control strategies, that may require considerable investment of time and effort from each participant.

Although gun ownership costs more money than simple measures such as locking doors, having neighbors watch one's house, or avoidance behaviors such as not going out at night, it costs less than buying and maintaining a dog, paying a security guard, buying a burglar alarm system, or relocating one's residence to an area with less crime. Consequently, it is a self-protection measure available to many low-income people who cannot afford more expensive alternatives. Gun ownership is not a replacement or substitute for these other self-help measures, nor for criminal-justice-system activities, but rather is more accurately thought of as a complement to them--an additional measure that might prove useful, for at least some crime victims, some of the time.

But in Kazakhstan, a country where more than half of the residents believe in the right to self-defence, non-lethal weapons are viewed as a viable means of personal protection.

12.If you were Minister of Justice, what measures would you take to decline crime rate in the country?

the United States, England and Belgium discuss successful crime reduction strategies with local crime prevention officials. One thing that struck me was how similar their experiences were. In each city there was a serious crime problem, a focussed response and a substantial improvement in both the reality and the perception of safety.

Although there are no "one-size-fits-all" solutions, there are common elements at work, chief among them a willingness to involve the community in a meaningful way. As one Chief of Police observed, "I [used to think] that the police fought crime alone and that the community could only get in the way. Now we've got it right. We understand that in order to prevent crime and keep our community safe, we've got to involve the community as our partner."

Jack Calhoun, President and CEO of the U.S. National Crime Prevention Council has identified six factors that were present in successful American city programs, even though actual strategies differed. They are:

A belief that all key municipal entities давать права must play a role in cutting crime and violence. Schools, businesses, municipal government and social services must all work together.

The need to engage вовлекать in specific, trackable actions. Cities need to have clear data on what the problems are, where they are and what's causing them. They need to know what's working and what isn't in order to use resources effectively.

The courage to do business differently and to share power. Giving up "turf," while difficult, is essential to working together.

A dual commitment to targeted enforcement and prevention - things like after school programs and mentoring. Law enforcement resources must be deployed consistently with broader crime prevention objectives.

A commitment to the long term. This is a challenge when some offer instant solutions, but helping young people build better lives doesn't happen overnight.

And, as Calhoun puts it, "Clear, passionate, hands-on commitment from the leading policy-makers, prime among them the Mayor and the Chief of Police."

Leadership; working together; identifying problems and then attacking them; measuring results; doing business differently; being tough on crime and equally tough on the causes of crime . . . these are the factors that we witness everyday in projects and communities throughout Canada. They produce positive changes here, just as they do in countries around the world.

13. What are the types of challenge and what aims do lawyers pursue while challenging jurors?

Attorneys choose jurors by using a system known as voir dire. This is where each side of a case has the opportunity to ask questions of the jurors to determine who would not be suited to serve on this case due to underlying biases. This is where the differences between federal and state court arise. In federal court, the judge is the one who generally conducts voir dire. the attorneys submit questions to the judge who will ask the questions to the jurors. In state court, generally each attorney is permitted to ask questions to the jurors in an alloted time period. At the end of voir dire, the attorneys are permitted to use for cause challenges to get rid of the jurors from the jury pool who would be tainted from delivering a verdict. This means for example if it is a murder case, juror fourteen's sister was murdered. This juror would be struck for cause because it would be hard for this juror to think about this murder case differently than they would think about their own sister's murder case. Then each side has an opportunity to exercise their preemptory challenges to get rid of a juror. This is where Batson challenges can arise. It is pretty complicated going into the ins and outs of jury selection but this is a bare bones summary.

14.Is death penalty or life imprisonment a right punishment for murderers?

Imagine a man who commits a murder once, is given a fifteen year jail sentence and is returned to the streets where he kills again. He is imprisoned again only to be released. This could happen because one in every ten death row inmates has been convicted of murder at least once before. This means, at least ten percent of death row inmates have been given the chance to rehabilitate in prison and continue to commit violent crimes. This is one of the main reasons the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for all murderers and perpetrates of other violent crimes.

The first reason for this is because of the extreme expense. The cost to house a prisioner is aproximately $22,000 per year. There are 883,593 prisoners in the United States costing American citizens $19.4 billion per year plus $61.7 million for the cost of building 1143 new spaces needed each year. On the other hand it costs nearly nothing to execute a prisoner and there is not a chance of he or she having the potential to kill another innocent victim.

The second reason that I believe capital punishment is appropriate is because of the deterent effects it holds upon crime. In 1885 a study was published by econimist Stephen K. Layson at the university of North Carolina to show how much, if any, the death penalty deters crime. The results showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murderers. There have also been many other interesting studies which showed basically the same results.

Besides the studies provided by Layson, there are several other stories that prove that the death penalty deters crime. On January 17, 1977, Gary Gilmore faced a firing squad at the Utah State Penetentary. In 1976, the year before his execution, there had been fifty-five murders. During 1977 in the wake of Gilmore's execution, there were only forty-four murders, a twenty percent decrease.

Murderer Deserves Appropriate Punishment

The United States has many problems-problems that need the attention of people as a whole. Murder is one of the problems. Murder is such a heinous crime that it deserves an appropriate punishment. Capital punishment is the appropriate discipline against cold-blooded killers. Murders deserve a fair and speedy trial just like anyone else.

Many people support capital punishment, because the death penalty has been around since the beginning of history. The judicial system has allowed murderers to be executed if they were proven guilty. The often used statement an "Eye for an Eye" has its origin in the Bible which states that people should be punished appropriately for their actions. It basically comes down to vengeance. The families of people who were innocently slain need to feel satisfied that something is being done about the killings. Murder is an attribute to capital punishment. Capital Punishment should be enforced more often and more quickly than it is.

Capital punishment is defined as the officially authorized execution of the death penalty on persons determined by appropriate legal procedures to have committed a criminal offense (Capital 290). Capital punishment is presently a prominent feature of the administration of criminal justice in many nations around the world. The death penalty has typically, although not invariably, characterized the criminal law since the beginning of recorded history.

This definition of capital punishment, while serving most utilitarian purposes, emphasizes the difficulties of tracing its origins in primitive society (Capital 290). Since capital punishment had been applied from ancient times in most societies, it has been used as punishment for crimes ranging from petty theft, corruption of the government, various sexual offenses, libel arson, bearing false witness, bribery, to murder

15. What are the functions of the other three people of courtroom personnel?

ROLE OF THE BAILIFF

A courtroom bailiff, a law enforcement officer of the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, is responsible for providing security and enforcing the law in and around the courthouse.

The bailiff provides the following security services:

For Judicial Officers, courtroom personnel, jurors and members of the public;

Escorts in-custody defendants to and from court proceedings; and

Takes charge of the jury during the time of deliberation to assure that no unauthorized persons come into contact with members of the jury.

The bailiff maintains order and prevention of unnecessary disturbances in and about the courtroom and ensures no one approaches the bench without the approval of the Judge. The bailiff also ensures the courtroom is secure and orderly. At the beginning of the day, between court sessions, and at the end of the day, the bailiff inspects the courtroom for weapons, contraband, suspicious objects, and safety hazards.

The bailiff makes an announcement in open court when the Judge is about to enter the courtroom to take the bench by stating “All rise, the Honorable Judge (name) presiding, please be seated.”

ROLE OF THE COURTROOM CLERK

The courtroom clerk sits in the courtroom near the Judge and prepares the minutes of the court proceedings. The courtroom clerk also administers oaths to witnesses and interpreters, secures records and exhibits, prepares criminal judgments and verdict forms and generally assists the Judge in managing the court calendars.

The courtroom clerk is employed by the Superior Court. Typically, one or two courtroom clerks support each Judge in a court.

ROLE OF THE COURT REPORTER

The court reporter sits near the witness stand in the courtroom and records every word that is spoken during the trial or introduced into evidence by typing on a stenographic machine. This verbatim record becomes the official record of the trial. The court reporter also produces a written transcript of the proceedings as ordered by the court or upon request by either party.

The court reporter uses a stenographic machine that has 22 keys. Using these 22 keys, a court reporter uses symbols to record what is said in court. The stenographic machine has a computer to help convert the symbols into the English words spoken in Court.

A court reporter may also be required to read out loud in court from the transcription on the stenographic machine. The court reporter may also be asked to read back portions of the official Court record for a jury.

ROLE OF THE JURY

The jury is seated in the boxed-in area on one side of the courtroom. A jury is a group of 12 individuals sworn to hear the evidence presented in a case. One or more alternate jurors are selected in the event a sworn juror is unable to complete the trial for health or other reasons. Alternates hear the trial but do not take part in deciding the verdict unless a juror is unable to deliberate.

Date: 2015-12-18; view: 1036