Courthouse Visit Due BY 11/29 @ midnight

I went to the courthouse in Waterloo on the 16th of November. I went there for an hour from 10.50am to 11.50am. The trial I watched was led by judge Daves Stout in room number 411. It was the State vs. Charles Ware. It was a jury trial and open to public. The trial started on 9am that morning and was already going when I came there. When I arrived in the courtroom the prosecuter was talking to the jury. She was explaining in detail what happened and showed pictures of the crime as evidence. The defandent was accused of domestic assault violations. As I learned from the prosecuters arguments the defendant went to the house of his exgirlfriend while being drunk where they started a fight that became physical. The exgirlfriend called 911 several times that night. The audio tape of the calls where also evidence during the trial. I also learned that this was day 2 of the trial.
The defendent’s attorney talked after the prosecuter to the jury. He adressed the jury directly by rereading and explaining the jury selection instructions and telling them that the defendant was required not to testify. I learned that the police officer that responded to the crime scene testified about the case. He reported that both, the exgirlfriend and the defendant, were both very loud and furious when he arrived at the scene.
It was suprising for me that after the defendent’s attorney finished the prosecuter stood up and talked again. I thought that when I entered the courtroom it was already the closing arguments. I learned during her argumentation that the girlfriend was suppossed to testify. However, she did not testify due to some threats she received prior to the trial.
After she was done with her closing argumentation the judge talked to the jury. He dismissed one juror since there was one too much. He explained that this 13th juror was a backup solution in case someone got sick or could not attend the trial for other reasons. The jury got all the exhibits that were used during the trial: the photographs, the audio tape and some charts that were used. They were now allowed to talk among each other about the case, however only if all of the 12 jurors were present. After they left the courtroom the defendent had to go with the bailiff into another room.
Sadly, I did not have enough time to say for the verdict. However, going to the courthouse and watching a proceeding was very exciting. At first, I felt a little bit out of place and lost when entering the courthouse and the courtroom. Except for the prosecuter and the attorney talking it was very silent in the courtroom. The only people watching the proceeding were an older woman, of whom I think she might have been the mother of the defendent, and two other students. As the proceeding went on two more students came into the room to watch. As I watched the defendent while they entered, it was clear that he was confused about all the people that came to watch his trial. Also, the judge looked a little bit confused about the interruptions.
Most of the trial went on as we learned it already during class or as you know it from TV. However, the happening was by far less exciting or thrilling as it is shown on TV.
The psychology related aspects I witnessed were of course the seating arrangements. The judges desk was a lot higher than everybody else was seated in the room. This is an psychological way to suggest power. Also the judges desk was put in a way that he could face every person in the room. Another psychological aspect could be seen in the time when the jury left the courtroom. In order to go into their room for deliberation they had to pass the defendant very close. It was interesting to observe how some of the jurors tried to not look at the defendent as they passed by while others took their chance to take a good look at the defendent for a last time.
In general both attorneys tried to show the case from a different point of view, as we heard in class before. It was very interesting to see this psychological game between attorneys and the jury. Both sides used different facts of the occurings of that night to proof their case. However, the reactions of the jury were hard to read. Most of the jurors looked either very tired or bored. Only a few of them seemed to have large interest in the case. It was interesting to observe them following the attorney’s argumentations.

On Thursday, November 17, I took a trip to the Black Hawk County Courthouse. When I walked in, I sauntered up to the daily court schedule and picked a case at random, based on what time it was; it was almost two o’clock so I headed to courtroom 412 to see what I had chosen. I walked in on the tail-end of a trial regarding crack cocaine. When I walked in, There were two other people seated speratically in the benches, but when the case ended I was left with myself in the audience, seated in the left corner of the front row out of three. The room is small, no place designated for a jury, so I assume this courtroom handles smaller cases. The judge sits at his natural place at the head of the room, a witness stand on his left hand, and a stenographer in front of that.

Here, I would like to begin to tell this tale out of chronological order, because my main point occurred before the actual trial took place. The defendant for the 2:00pm trial never showed and everyone involved (including myself) either sat around and chitchatted or wandered in and out of the room (I did the former). At 2:30pm, the next trial began; the last trial of the day. The case was this: Kevin Cliff (the name has been changed) went to trial for delivering marijuana and pled not guilty in 2008. Now, he was changing his plea in the hopes for leniency. His attorney made the case that Cliff was young at the time (26 years old) and has no past criminal record. He asked for a deferred sentence/judgement (which was granted), and an imposed but suspended civil penalty on both counts. (Now, the trial moved at an incredible pace and I was unable to determine what the two difference counts were, but I have assumed that one count deals with possession of marijuana and the other with intent to distribute.)

Before the sentencing, Cliff was permitted to make a statement. He said that he used to hang with the wrong crowd and that that added to his youth clouded his judgment. Plus, he is now getting to the point in his life where he is not going to risk everything by getting into trouble again. The judge liked this statement, and his decision was incredibly lenient: Cliff received two years of probation, community service to pay off the civil penalty on one count, and an imposed by suspended civil penalty on the other count. At the end of the trial, Cliff’s mother, who had sat in my row across the aisle, stood and thanked the judge for being so kind to her son.

Before this all occurred, the people left in the courtroom waiting for the 2:00pm trial talked and discussed multiple topics. The one of interest was brought up by the discovery of me sitting alone on the bench. The judge asked if I was just there to watch and I explained that I needed to for a class. He grew excited when I said my professor was MacLin, though he thought I meant Otto, not Kim. He told me Otto had been an Expert Witness for him before, and had shown him the famous gorilla video (we watched it in class). The judge was so impressed and awed by this video; I could see it in his face and hear it in his tone. This sparked a brief conversation betwixt him and the stenographer about eyewitness testimony and how reliable it is. In this short interchange I noted something I had read about and feared: the judge didn’t understand basic psychology as it applied to a courtroom. Everything we have learned in class, he could have largely benefitted from.

This is a problem that I strongly believe needs to be addressed in all courts across the nation. There are too many aspects of the court system that are flawed to the point that a heinous amount of innocent people suffer in prison for it, or are even executed. Line-ups, eyewitness testimony, interrogations, opening statements and closing arguments; these are all aspects of the system that could be virtually flawless and work the way people believe they already do if the proper people were trained with a little psychology that applies to the courts. Then, perhaps, barely any innocents would be subjected to the harsh life of prison.

Court Visit #1

I went after lunch, on Monday 21st, 2011, to the Black Hawk County Courthouse. Here I sat in the waiting area among what mostly appeared to be defendants, witnesses, policemen and lawyers. Each person checked in with the desk clerk and asked numerous questions as to how court proceedings would be conducted, they told details of their cases and asked questions, and numerous other inquiries were made. For the hour I sat there before entering a courtroom to observe a trial I saw and heard many interesting things.

Many of the inquiries made at the clerk desk were questions that the defendant should ask to their lawyer. Many of the questions they had were in regards to information that their lawyer probably should have related to them prior to their appearance. Some people were showing up for their court appearance on the wrong days, because their lawyer hadn’t communicated to them that things had been moved around. One woman who took time to show up was informed that her lawyer was pleading not guilty, and she was not therefore required to be present.

Only one gentleman (defendant) that was waiting wore the appropriate courtroom clothes that are outlined on their website for anyone visiting the courts. One of the lawyers coming into the area looked confused as to where to go or what to do. A couple lawyers had to go around asking individuals if they were a certain person. I found it crazy that one lawyer had never set eyes on his defendant, especially once I got in the courtroom and heard what the case was about. Lawyers were openly discussing cases in the waiting area, asking questions, and debating sentences. All the cases that were supposed to start at 1:30 did not get started until at least ten till 2. The trial I observed, started at 1:55pm and ended around 2:35pm.

The case I sat in on did not contain a jury, yet. It seemed to be a trial to determine if the case should go on to a jury trial or be decided by the judge that day. I had earlier heard the DA discussing a possible bargain, which was declined by the defendant’s council in the hope that they would go to trial. It was incredibly quiet in the court until the judge started the trial. The states lawyer was a female, and the defendants lawyer a male. The purpose of the case may have been stated at the beginning, but I however, either didn’t hear it or got confused. In fact I was mostly confused throughout the trial as to what charges were being brought against the defendant. I could understand the nature of the case due to the questions asked of the witness and the cop that reported to the scene, but other than that was confused as to the charges. Towards the end of the trial when the judge and two lawyers were discussing documentation, it became apparent that the defendant was being charged with aiding and abetting. So this must have been a separate part of another trial, in which the defendant at this trials girlfriend was being charged with assault.

The witness did not swear on a bible, and simply swore that what they said today will be correct. From the questions asked and the witness’s answers I have some idea of what occurred. A couple (man and woman), lived in an apartment complex next to another complex in which the witness lived in. The witness was smoking outside her building near their window and they got upset. The couple supposedly provoked the girl by yelling at her. She somehow ended up in their building outside their door, where a verbal confrontation took place. The girl part of the couple while standing in her own apartment, reached out into the hallway where the witness stood and punched her in the face. I am not aware of what occurred after this punch, but the witness did remain in the hallway and the couple in the apartment. However, the male part of the couple drew a gun and pointed it at the witness saying “I’m gonna kill her” while looking at her. I believe this is the point in which she called the cops to report the incident. The cop stated that all individuals were respectful and that yes the young man was armed when he got there, but also presented a license to carry. He also stated that the witness on the stand did not mention the gun during her statement to the police officer at the scene.

This case seemed at many times to be about a “no contact” order. It seemed to be between the male defendant and his girlfriend that he supposedly aided and abetted in this debacle. However, I don’t understand how this is relevant for the trial? Or if it is, I don’t understand what relevance the witness is, or the gun is? All this confusion on my part as to why certain evidence or facts are important is important, because often times juries can be confused as to what is suppose to be done during a trial, what evidence or facts are to be weighed, and what is going on in general. We learned through my research on juries that this can be a problem. Also, juries are not always allowed to discuss cases with other jury members during the case. If this trial had a jury and the juries were left on their own, until decision time on the sentencing at the end of the trial, they could easily be confused and miss-store critical information to the trial. Because they are not allowed to clear up all these confusions they may have during the trial, by organizing all the information they are receiving, the information they incur can become jumbled or just wrong. I was confused by these things in observing the trial, so I assume that a jury would be as well. This is why it is important for jury’s to be addressed about the case and what certain legal movements mean, so there is less confusion during the case. For instance, we cannot assume that all people on a jury would know what is meant when objections are made and allowed, suspending any information that was just shared from being used in the trial. The council and judge all seemed to be confused as to the purpose, necessity, and evidence that some documents presented. I believe in the end, the trial was decided based off some documentation, rather than the incident.

Another thing I noticed during the trial was that the defendant’s lawyer was rather harsh, with both the witness and the officer. His way of questioning them seemed to belittle them, making any nervousness that may have been felt but subdued come out full force. He would ask a question, and if they seemed to think about the answer at all, he would forcefully and quickly restate the question again and again without pause until they finally interrupted him with an answer. It appeared and probably felt to them that they were the ones on trial, rather than the defendant who did not speak a word, but when he whispered to his attorney. The male lawyer’s position was also a little discombobulating. He slouched back with one arm draped behind him over the back of his chair. Leg loosely spread out in front of him, under the table. To me, this represented a tough guy, “whatever”, look to him, which was not favorable in my opinion, but may have further intimidated the witness.

Overall the experience was interesting, but a little awkward to be a stranger observing someones case, in which no once else was in the room but the defendant, the two lawyers, judge and another person involved in the case.

On 11/28/11 I visited a court case at the Linn County Courthouse in Cedar Rapids. This trial was a bench trial so a jury was not present. This trial took place on the third floor of the court house in room 3B at 10:30. I have been in this courthouse a few times and it is rather old. I had to walk through metal detectors in order to come in. There were business like people and police officers everywhere. There was a county attorney (prosecutor) and a defense attorney. Since the woman on trial has been in the news (and in the article that I submit with this post) I see no reason to leave her name out.

Mary Jane Doolan was in court today for violating the terms and rules of her probation. On 9/22/11 she pled guilty to three counts of pimping. Since she is a habitual offender, the state went ahead and made things easy on her by withdrawing the habitual charge. The judge was Marsha Beckelman. Beckelman looked like a very stern but supportive woman. She definitely seemed passionate about her job. Even though Doolan seemed like a person the judge would never care to see, Beckelman seemed very patient. During a trial, often the judge will grant the defendant a right of allocution. When Doolan was asked if she had words to share, she whispered loudly to her lawyer "You wouldn't want me to". To get a better idea of what Doolan looks like you can go ahead and look at the link below. Doolan is a 60 year old woman who has been running a prostitution ring for a number of years. She has been getting into trouble for pimping out her 37 year old daughter. She was caught by an undercover police officer.

Doolan was given a 5 year suspended sentence, but is to serve 90 days at the moment. Following this, she is to be on probation for 3 years. The Department of Corrections would evaluate her and her fine to be $750 plus surcharges and court costs. Once hearing this Doolan started to complain that she did not have enough money to pay this fine. This set her up on a payment schedule and she is ordered to pay $50 per month. Doolan has a prior conviction in Johnson County for contempt of court. She served 20 days in jail for this conviction. At the end of the hearing, Doolan started to oddly complain that she would have rather taken five years in prison over 90 days in jail. Once the judge left, Doolan turned to her attorney and complained that she couldn't hear the judge and that she had health issues due to "cysts on her skull." This hearing only lasted about an hour.

Since this was not a trial by jury, the only psychological factor that comes to mind is how one portrays themselves in court. Everyone sitting in on court stood when the judge walked in out of respect. The judge treated everyone else with respect and so did the police officer, county attorney and the defense attorney. From a psychological perspective this would be known as behaviorism. Typically when a person is in court defending themselves they will act and dress in a manner that is appropriate to make themselves look good or less criminal. Doolan did the exact opposite. Her remarks and the way she acted reflected the way she cared about her case. She did not care at all about herself. As for the way she dressed,she was wearing jail issued clothing. She is currently in custody with bail posted at $10,000.

Overall I knew what to expect when coming to the Linn County Courthouse. I have never sat in on a trial, but I have heard a lot about them from someone that I am close to. They are very fast paced and are a normal occurence.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/02/11/20100211mom-pimps-daughter.html
Here is the interesting little article on Doolan.

Visit 1.
This first case that I attended was a sentencing hearing. This was at the Blackhawk County Courthouse in Waterloo. In this case there was an 19 year old male who has, had sex with a 11 year old girl. He was charged with Lucivous acts with a child. In the case he said he and the girl had been texting back and forth and he was sneaking into her home. This happened on 3 different occasions. During the first meeting the two only cuddles. The second they kissed, and on the third is when the events took place. During this time he proceeded to have sex with her. She said it hurt to much and then they proceeded to go forth with anal sex.
The victim had lied about her age, telling the defendant that she was 15, and she had admitted that she had lied about her age. The judge made it a point to tell the defendant that her being 14 was still against the law and the defendant should of had better judgement.
With these facts the prosecution was going for a suspended 10 year prison sentence and probation. The defendant was working a full time job. He was prepared to move in with his grandparents to move away from the area and still maintain his job. He had no prior criminal history and had graduated high school. With these things going for him the judge sentenced him to 5 years probation, restitution for the victim, sex offender program and registry, and a fine of $250. He also said that if the probation and its terms were completed, there would be no felony on his record.
It was my first ever courtroom visit and I was surprised on how much different it was from what I expected. There were not many people in the court room. Both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer were not yelling, neither was unkind to the other during or after the trial. It was a professional atmosphere. I thought that the defendant may of had a learning disability or may just have been a little slow. It takes a lot for me to believe that an 11 year old girl can look like she is 15 or 16 years old. Even though she lied he still should have known better and I feel that the judge was kind to him.
Visit #2
My second visit was much less exciting and interesting than the first. I went to a civil hearing in a divorce case that was deciding child support. The dispute was that the male in the relationship did not think that he needed to pay as much money as he had been paying. The mother of these children was going to school full time and was no longer working. She was not seeking anymore money out of him. She really seemed like she just wanted the whole thing to be over.
The reason that they split was because he had cheated on her and he was now seeing this other woman after they had split up. The kicker to this particular hearing that the man asked for, was that he did not show up. The hearing only took about 10 or fifteen minutes. The judge ruled in favor of the woman because of the plaintiff's lack of attendance at the hearing which he asked for.
This was interesting to me that someone who asked for the hearing would just not show up. I guess I do not know if that happens a lot but to me that just seems like shooting your self in the foot for anything that may come up in the future. There was not really anything that I could put on the case that would be classified as psychological. There was no jury, attorneys were present but did not need to say all that much because the plaintiff did not show up.

I went to the Black Hawk County Courthouse today (November 28) around 2:30 and stayed there a little over an hour. When I got there, I went to ask one of the secretaries off to the left what court cases she suggested I go to. She suggested I go to a magistrate hearing which was about to start at 2:30. This case only lasted a half hour, so I stayed another half hour and caught the end of one trial and the beginning of another. I decided to focus on the first case I saw though.

I went into Courtroom #107 and found I was the first one in there besides the judge/magistrate. At first, he thought I was the defendant. A few minutes later, though, the real defendant came in along with the prosecutor and the witness. The defendant, a middle-aged female, was without counsel and represented herself. (I will call the defendant Ms. D.) The prosecutor started off by calling her first witness who was a police officer. The police officer happened to be the one who made contact with the defendant. The magistrate swore him in, and he sat in the witness stand. The prosecutor asked him to state his name and inform us of his employment. His name was Officer Brandt, and he had worked for the Waterloo Police Department since 2009. One thing I found odd was that the prosecutor was quite interested in what shift he usually works and what shift he was working the night of the event. I did not think that was of any importance.

The police officer told us the event in question occurred on September 2, 2011 in the 300 block of Allen St. Officer Brandt made contact with Ms. D. because she was stopped on the traveled portion of the road. Officer Brandt testified that Ms. D. was stopped on the road talking to a male bystander. He testified that no one could get around her stopped vehicle. He also testified that there were vacant spots on the side of the road she could have used instead.

The magistrate allowed Ms. D. to cross-examine the witness. He informed her that she could only ask the witness questions and that if later she testified she could make statements and give a narration at that time. Ms. D. did not seem to understand this instruction because she just kept giving statements and not asking the witness questions. The magistrate was getting frustrated with her, but she eventually got the procedure correct. Ms. D. did not ask too many questions and mainly only asked the witness where her vehicle was when he made contact with her.

Next, the magistrate asked Ms. D. if she would like to testify on her own behalf and she accepted. He swore her in but did not make her sit in the witness stand. He let her sit at the counsel table, which was kind of odd. Ms. D. told her side of the story claiming she did park off to the side of the road and was there to pick up her niece. There were quite a few discrepancies in Ms. D.’s story, and it seemed as though she could not get her story straight. For example, she contradicted herself on where her vehicle was parked. She also at one point claimed Officer Brandt had pulled up behind her. Later, she recanted this and said she could not remember whether Officer Brandt pulled up behind her or alongside her. These discrepancies and contradictions confused the prosecutor and magistrate as well as me. The prosecutor had to keep asking questions so as to clarify for herself and everyone what the defendant was saying. This case obviously had two completely different stories.

Then, since Ms. D. did not have any witnesses to call upon, the magistrate was ready to give his decision. He explained in simple terms how he came to his decision and why he made the decision he made. The magistrate pointed out that Ms. D. could not remember whether Officer Brandt pulled up behind her or alongside her. He also pointed out that there was no reason for Officer Brandt to lie and that he had no credibility issues with him. The magistrate was not saying Ms. D. was lying, however. His decision was to have her pay $195 within 30 days. This is the sum of the fine issued by Officer Brandt along with surcharges and fees. Ms. D. claimed she could not afford that amount in the allotted time or afford to make installments. So, the magistrate told her she had to do 22 hours of community service in place of the fine and have the hours verified by December 26. Community service could not be put in place of the $35 surcharge though. Thus, she has to pay $35 and do 22 hours of community service by December 26.

I found a couple of things interesting in this case. One is that Ms. D. did not have counsel or even court-appointed counsel. I figured she could not afford her own counsel so she would get court-appointed counsel but for some reason she did not. A second interesting thing is that there was no court stenographer, so I am assuming and hoping they were tape recording the case. Another thing was that for the most part the case was very formal and guided but some instances of it were not as formal. For example, the magistrate let the defendant sit at the counsel table while testifying instead of making her sit at the witness stand as he had the witness do.

One aspect of psychology I saw in this case was memory. Ms. D. could not remember whether Officer Brandt had pulled up behind her or alongside her. Also, there was a discrepancy as to whether Ms. D.’s vehicle was stopped on the road or off to the side. According to our textbook, we tend to forget as time passes, and our memories become more vulnerable to revision and corruption. We store in memory selective, inexact replicas of what we actually saw. In addition, the images we store may decay over time, and the retrieval process includes some reconstruction. This could all be true in this case because the event occurred at the beginning of September and they had to recall information today from that time. Ms. D. may have had a preexisting script/expectation for her situation. When you stop your vehicle on the road, you stop off to the side. Ms. D. may have known that that is what typically occurs in that situation and figured that is what happened. According to our textbook, if information is lacking or not encoded correctly, we tend to rely on scripts to fill in memory gaps. Therefore, perhaps this is what happened to Ms. D. Ms. D. seemed pretty confident that she had stopped off to the side of the road and not on the traveled portion of the road. Again, according to our textbook, confidence is not a good indicator of accuracy since confidence is likely to increase over time. Therefore, since the event, her confidence had increased and she was certain she stopped off to the side of the road.

One of my two visits to a courthouse was in Blackhawk County and was a sentencing hearing. A nineteen year old male was being charged with luscious acts on an eleven year old girl. The court room was not full or busy at all and everyone seemed to be quiet and efficient. The defendant claimed that he and the child had been texting back and forth and he had also snuck into her home, this happening 3 different occasions. Their time together at first was just cuddling, next they kissed. In the end, sex was too painful for the child, so the proceeded to perform anal sex. The victim had originally lied about her age making her older than eleven but still under the age of eighteen. Even though the judge said that no matter the lie she was still under aged and he should have had better judgment, the defendant was sentenced to five years probation, restitution of the victim, sex offender program and registry, and a fine of $250. The judge also said that if the defendant completed probation, there would be no felony on his record. This was not the result that the prosecution had intended, which was ten years in prison and probation.

I do not necessarily know if I agreed with the prosecution’s intended punishment, but I also do not agree with the punishment that the defendant received. I thought that the judge was too nice to the defendant and all he received was a slap on the wrist. It was a confusing experience for me because it was hard to believe either side. First, how could the defendant not tell the approximate age of the girl? Eleven and fifteen year olds do not look that similar. Second, it was hard to know what to think about the young girl putting forth as much effort on their relationship. Granted, the defendant should know better, it is still disturbing to think that the young girl wanted this kind of negative attention. I think that the defendant should have gotten jail time at least. If the purpose of our legal system is to provide justice, while setting rules and guidelines; we must abide by them. He clearly broke the law, but yet he to me the punishment did not fit the crime. He simply promised to move in with his grandparent and maintain a full time job while forking out a small amount of cash. This is why I feel the way I do about the legal system. I believe there are flaws that need to be fixed and we need to start leading by example and provide the proper justice that the people deserve.

Court Visit #2
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 I visited the Black Hawk County Courthouse to do my second observation of courtroom proceedings. I arrived at 9:20 am, was informed by lawyers and the clerk that there was an interesting attempted murder case beginning on floor 4, room 415. I sat in on the voir dire process of the trial from 9:30 till 12:10. During this time period of 2 hours, 40 minutes, there were two breaks and when I felt they were recessing for lunch until 2pm, at which point out mock trial for class was to begin.
When I arrived at the fourth floor and started towards room 415 there was a massive amount of people coming down the hall towards me. This was the jury pool on break. I sat and waited for them to return. By the time the parties, defense council and prosecution council, and the judge returned and got the voir dire back on track it was 10:10. Observing the pool of possible jury participants I counted 28 people. Of these people 19 were male and 9 were female. Of the males in the pool, 4 were elderly (over 65 yrs.), 11 middle-aged (30-65 years old), and 4 were young (between 18-30 yrs.). Of the females in the pool, 2 were elderly, 4 middle-aged, and 3 were young. Except for one young black female, one young Hispanic female, and a middle-aged Pilipino woman all possible jury members were white European Americans. Of all the people in the courtroom I recognized 4 of them. The middle-aged Pilipino woman is the mother to a guy I graduated high school with 10 years ago. One of the younger males I have had in multiple classes at UNI, and frequent my work establishment. The court assistant is the sister to a good friend of mine from childhood, and I know her well. One other young male jury participant I recognized but could not remember how I know him.
Based on questions that were asked or answers and comments that were given to and by the jury pool I was able to know more about the individuals. Three of the jury pool members were professors in upper education institutes, two individuals were lawyers themselves, and one person was married to a lawyer. One individual was a photographer for the Courier newspaper, most of the younger individuals were students at UNI or Hawkeye and the rest I am unaware of their occupation status.
Once everyone was settled back in to the courtroom the prosecutor, Mr. Jacobson, began the voir dire proceedings at 10:10am by introducing himself and the defense council, Mr. Thompson. He worked in a little humor while addressing the potential jurors and asked how many of them woke up this morning, knowing they were coming in for jury duty, and thought “oh fun!”? One jury member, raised his hand, and some fun was had with that. Mr. Jacobson explained what voir dire was, it’s purpose, how it is conducted and why. He claimed that this process would be the “closest that the jury would ever come in having a conversation” [with the parties involved in the case]. Then he proceeded by ask general questions to the people in attendance of jury duty, that if pertained to an individual they would raise their hand. At this point, specific questions in regards to the initial question would be asked to some of those individuals if not all of them that raised their hands. Below is a list of some of the questions that were asked.
-Who has participated, watched, or been called to a jury trial before?
-What type of trial?
-How long did the trial last?
-How long did the jury deliberate on the verdict?
-Do you think anything about the jury process is unfair?
-Have you learned anything surprising about the judicial system while participating, watching, or being called to a jury trial in the past?
-How do you feel about needing a unanimous verdict in order to convict someone?
-How do you feel about being called to jury duty and then after some time at trial the case is settled without a jury?
-Do any of you know any of the people involved in this case? At this point he stated the names of all police officers, witnesses, dispatchers, detectives, lawyers, victims, and defendant.
-Do you understand the terms fair and impartial?
-Who are these terms directed at in a trial? Victim or defendant?

The “most dangerous question all day” that the prosecutor asked was if anyone had prearranged appointments, vacation etc. that would inhibit their ability to participate as a juror for this trial. He stated that the trial would last approximately one week (over on Thursday or Friday of the next week), but could not make any promises. 14 people brought up reasons they had that would interfere with the trial and of those 14, 9 were dismissed right away. Three of these were because they were students and finals were coming up. Two were dismissed because they were professors who also need to be in their classes prior to finals coming up. Two were dismissed because they had to care for family members that had recently had surgery or would in the time span of the trial and could not be rescheduled. One person was dismissed because he had trials of his own, because he is a lawyer that he could not miss or reschedule. The other lawyer was seeing what he could do to rearrange hearings he had in the next week if he needed to do so, was not dismissed. One person was dismissed because of having plane tickets for a vacation that is out of the country. The only other person that I watched be dismissed during my time observing was a lady who discussed why she may be unable to be impartial during the trial due to a personal previous experience, that she discussed with the councils, defendant and judge in privacy. People who were called as possible substitute jurors were called to take the position of these individuals that were dismissed.

It was interesting to observe what types of questions were asked of the people called to jury duty. It was clear that they were trying to determine whether specific individuals had any biases, prejudices, or negative opinions or perceptions of the judicial processes and system. Some questions appeared to be trying to judge whether people would allow sympathy for victims and or the defendant get in the way of making decisions based on factors besides the facts and evidence presented during the trial. This was done by using metaphors that depicted a victim as less deserving of sympathy and another hypothetical case involving a victim possibly more deserving of sympathy, base on the stories presented at a trial to see if when the fact of the case are presented whether the defendant would be guilty or not guilty. This also measured people understanding of what constitutes as a law being broken. Psychology comes in to play during these “fake” stories being used to determine whether people will let sympathy influence their perception of evidence because it does.

The prosecutor also asked the question of who watched crime dramas or related television shows. This is important because we have learned that the “CSI effect” can create an idea of what judicial proceedings should be like and these are often different than the reality of the real judicial system. This lead to questions as to whether the jurors expected to like all the witnesses. This lead into how people feel about other people involved in the trial process can strongly influence there perception of information and ability to judge facts and evidence fairy and impartially. In psychology we know that people tend to like people who are more like themselves. People tend to be more favorable towards attractive people, people with baby-face features, etc. It needed to be addressed to show to people that these things may influence and they should strongly try and be aware of things that might bias them in their collection and examination of information presented to them.

The prosecutor also addressed how there are issues that can come up in regards to memory. To highlight this he asked and elderly married man how long he had been married. It was something like 40 years. He then asked him questions like what kind of cake did you have? How many groomsmen and bridesmaids? Some of these questions the man was like, “I don’t remember”. The prosecutor then asked if his wife would remember. He said probably yes. The prosecutor asked him if they may perhaps different answers and accounts for the details of the activities that took place the day of their wedding. He said, “Yes”. This shows another aspect of psychology’s usefulness in the judicial system. It is proven that our memories are not perfect replications of events that have occurred. Time decays memory, other information can confuse and transform memories. This crime being tried occurred in April of 2009. Two and half years ago.

Before the lunch break, called at 12:10, the judge reminded the juror members still left for the voir dire that they are not allowed to research information on the case or discuss the case with any other people. This is so that they are not accumulating information in regards to the case that may not be presented at trial, may be different than the information presented at trial, etc. We know from psychology that this is important because just like how time can influence our memory, this outside information can influence our memory, perceptions of the trial and people involved, and help create biases in us that we may be unconscious of.

My visit to the Black Hawk County Courthouse was a rather boring visit, as I was either there at the wrong time of the day or there weren’t any “exciting cases” going on that day. I went on October 31st around 1:00 pm.
The main case I heard was petty theft. The one case was a theft in the 5th degree charge for a man who stole from Hy-Vee in Waterloo. The man was caught by the Hy-Vee employees after he concealed a package of medicine in his pants pockets. Supposedly, he opened up the medicine and concealed it. He had paid for some items but never paid for the medicine. It sounded pretty odd to me that this man was trying to appeal his case. It seemed that he knew he was guilty and it didn’t appear to have much grey area to his story. His main defense was that he was being discriminated against. Supposedly, he was upset that whoever caught him at Hy-Vee was discriminating against him because they decided to follow him and/or check in on his odd behavior. It was almost as if this man was saying “yes im guilty, but they discriminated against me to catch me- therefore, is shouldn’t be charged.” He was trying to blame the fault on the store for following him rather than him being at fault from stealing from the store. The assistant county attorney basically wasn’t having any of his argument, and they either worked out a plea or he was found guilty. I am not sure what the penalties for theft are, so whatever agreement they came to, he was set to serve. It was mostly just a fine and the charge on his record. I don’t believe he would spend any time in jail because it was his first offense.
I didn’t have much time to spend at the court house, but I got bits and pieces of different trials that were about to happen. Most of them seemed to be plea deals because I saw a lot of people who were defendants go into rooms with the assistant county attorneys and come out in relatively short amounts of time. Like I mentioned- I am not sure if it was just a “slow” day at the courthouse, or I was just there at the wrong time, but this theft case was the most complete hearing I was able to join in on.

I went to the courthouse today, the twenty-ninth at around three. I managed to sneak into a rather fascinating lawsuit between Donna Firgard and New Century, a propane company.

Donna Firgard was caught in an explosion caused by propane pooling in her basement and an attempt to light a hot water heater.

The prosecution, Brett Beattie played heavily to the sympathies of the jury. It wasn't hard, Firgard was an older lady, so she makes a very sympathetic plaintiff for a case involving major injury. Beattie was a little heavy handed though, more disorganized than he should have been. He was rather nervous, and it showed, heavily detracting from his speaking skills.

Worse yet, he went step by step through the recovery process, and his opening statement took over an hour. He had a lot of good material, but he sailed over the sweet spot of just enough into too much and he failed to engage the jury. Going too in depth can be a killer especially when people might not want to be there.

The defense attorney for New Century was clearly more experienced. He blew Beattie out of the water in terms of organization and speaking skills.

His opening statement was a lot more concise, clearer and a good deal shorter. He also knew how to ingratiate himself to the jury by having virtually the first words to pass his lips be a statement on how he intends to be brief. The air of relief that filled the room that moment was visible across the board. He even managed to be professional by remarking that the prosecuting attorney did have a lot of points to cover.

The defense attorney was also wise in humanizing himself and by proxy his corporation. He didn't have any Ad hominem attacks and instead spoke to the virtuous character of the plaintiff. Had he gone any other route it easily could have become evil big corporation versus poor little old lady. It freed him up to still deny liability in several ways that were rather convincing.

It turns out that the lead-in pipe for the propane had been tampered with several times over. Once, a plumber knicked it and shut it himself. Two, when rough fill gravel was laid, a backhoe was brought in and the piping for the propane ended up wrapped in a layer of four inch plastic drain tile to support the gravel over that section and to allow water to still drain past it.

There was one major point of contention with the arguments however. The key phrase that was uttered by Donna Firgard to the Deputy Fire Marshall about knowing that she shouldn't have tried to light the pilot light for the water heater. The prosecution said that Donna wasn't used to such things and usually had her husband do it. The defense claimed that Donna was both perfectly capable and plenty knowledgeable because of a neighbor who had taught her how to deal with such troubles.

The defense also brought up the idea of possible memory issues caused by the trauma and opined that Firgard's memory of that day was markedly different than that of the neighbor who found her in the yard. The fire happened May 30th, 2008 so there is a good chance that there is some memory errors all around.

I went to the Washington County Courthouse on November 28, 2011 at 1:30pm. I chose to go here because my hometown is in that county and I had only went there before to get my license so I was interested to see what it was like. I had actually called the courthouse a couple of weeks in advance so when I arrived at the courthouse I went to see the Clerk of Court. When I got there, I asked them if it would be okay if I sat in on some court cases; they wrote my name down and said they would let the judge know that I was interested in sitting in. I was shocked by this because I didn’t realize that it was ultimately up to the judge whether or not I could come in. After being sent up to the second floor, where I had never been before, I sat in the waiting area. The cases were to begin at 1:30pm and I was there around 1:15pm. While I waited for the judge and his approval to let me sit in, I took note of my surroundings. At first, I was nervous and felt like I was the one in trouble as everyone took glances at me and I would casually look over at them just wanting to say, “I’m not in trouble, I swear.” However, I never had the opportunity to say that and they eventually knew that I was just going to be watching them once they walked in. Going along with this, I couldn’t get over the silence. I have never been in an environment where no one says anything, literally not a word. While looking around I notice the roses up above painted and popping out on both sides of every doorway. I also took note of the different courtrooms because I had originally assumed that all of the cases were taken care of in one courtroom, I was wrong.

The judge finally appeared along with a couple of other people. Each arrived at 1:30pm and I thought for sure that the cases would begin, but again, I was wrong. I continued to look around the room and then down at the time; I was finally called in at 1:50pm. “Ms. Emry, you may enter the courtroom,” was the last sentence I heard before taking my place in the courtroom. Once I sat down, the judge asked me questions about why I was wanting to sit in and after explaining he actually told me that he had wished he would have taken more psychology courses; I liked that the judge was not extremely terrifying and after talking with him, I felt a little more comfortable. The first thing I mentally took note of (because I could not take notes during the cases just for confidentiality since it was not open to the public) was the time. The cases were supposed to begin at 1:30pm and it was now going on 2:00pm. This grabbed my attention because I thought,” if the defendant showed up later than the case and the judge was ready, they would probably get in trouble; but the judge has the power to start whenever they feel ready.” I did not find this fair and thought if the defendant is supposed to be there at a specific time, the judge should also not waste their time and also be present a little earlier so the cases aren’t backed up. While sitting in, I was shocked at how fast these cases were going. The first gentleman who came in pleaded guilty right away and the judge also brought to everyone’s attention that he had just seen the defendant last week. Come to find out, most of the people that were coming in were repeat offenders. I also found out that many of the cases that come through are due to people driving with a suspended license or people who couldn’t pay for their tickets and were receiving a suspended license until paying their fines. I could not understand why people would continue to do the same thing and not think they are going to get caught, it just drove me crazy. There was another case that was supposed to take place dealing with a man writing bad checks and had not yet paid the fines or the money he owed. However, he did not show up and this was actually the third time he skipped court. The guy only lives six blocks away from the courthouse and didn’t come. I found this both humorous and frustrating. I didn’t understand how the guy got away with skipping court so many times, but then they mentioned that they would have a warrant sent out for his arrest because he decided not to appear.

The cases wrapped up and I stayed afterwards and got a chance to meet with the judge and the prosecutor and did not end up leaving until around 3:30pm. I was able to ask them questions dealing with the cases as well as talk to them about our Psychology and Law class and how we were preparing for a mock trial. I also noted how different it was to talk to them on a personal basis rather than seeing them on the stand. I realized that they aren’t as intimidating. Some other things I noted was that both the judge and prosecutor were dressed professionally and it would be easy for a person to pick them out of a crowd as being a higher power in the courtroom. I also noted that the defendants were not as concerned with how they looked. One gentleman did wear some nice pants with a button up shirt but there was also another man who came in wearing dirty jeans that had holes in them, a Nike hat (that was once white), and it looked like he hadn’t showered in about a week. I couldn’t believe it. I thought for sure, if I was in trouble, I would be looking my best just to make a good impression. However, some people do not see it that way and could probably care less what the judge or the courtroom thinks of them. No matter how they were dressed though, their role was still the same. They were respectable, did not talk unless they were asked to, and none of them said rude things coming in or walking out of the courtroom. The defendants did not speak out in the courtroom or even in the waiting room. This just goes to show how the environment plays a huge role in people’s actions. These are just a few areas where psychology played a role; behavior, expectations, reactions, were all things I witnessed while sitting in the courtroom and have mentioned above. Overall, I enjoyed this experience once I got over being nervous. I couldn’t help but feel like I was in trouble when I waited with everyone else but once I took a seat that was located to the side of the case, each defendant looked at me different. I couldn’t help but wonder what they were thinking once they seen me sitting there, but that is something I will never know. I also liked that I didn’t have to see anyone I knew, it made the whole experience more realistic. I would like to see more cases, maybe some that are longer and have a little more going on that way I can experience the courtroom in another perspective; this is something I am looking into.

I went to the Linn County courthouse. I went to the courthouse with my sister who is also in this class. We had to walk through a metal detector, saw lots of people in uniforms and suits. We went to the third floor into room 3 B at 1030 AM. This one trial took roughly an hour and a half. There were no jury members due to the fact that it was a bench trial. This means that there is just the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, and defendant. This is done because on September 22nd 2011 Mary Jane Doolan was brought in due to the fact of violating parole. I am using her name because her case has been in the news lately. The reason she was on parole was because she pled guilty to pimping. She had three counts of pimping pinned to her but luckily for her the state withdrew her habitual charge.
The judge was Marsha Beckelman. The judge asked the defendant if she wanted the right of allocution. This means that Mary can say anything prior to sentencing, for example an apology. Doolan turned at this point to her defense attorney and laughed hysterically saying, "You would not want me to." Reffering to the right of allocution.
Doolan was given a 5 year suspended sentence not to exceed credit for time served. She is to serve 90 days in jail. After this Doolan will have 3 years of probation. Overall the department of corrections would evaluate her and her fine at 750 dollars plus surcharges, plus court costs. When Doolan heard this she complained that she did not have enough money so they put her on a payment plan of 50 dollars per month.
The judge said that Doolan could appeal to supremem court, and if so, she had to apply for attorney and transcript within 30 days. Doolan has a prior conviction in Johnson County which landed her 20 days in jail.
As the judge left the room the defendant started to complain that she couldn't hear the judge, she had health issues, and she apparently had systs on hr skull.
Overall this was a very interesting court trial I partook in. It's definitely different to see that much action in a court room. You just don't expect that much shenanigans.
http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/02/11/20100211mom-pimps-daughter.html
This is an article on Mary Jane Doolan's trial and includes a picture of her not at her best.

This is my second trial of the day because I am a juror in the mock trial.
State versus Shaina Jacobson was held on the 3rd floor in room 3 A. This court hearing was pertaining to a conspiracy to commit a felony. This was also a bench trial. She was going to be charged for a simple misdemeanor assault, but she asked for a differed judgement. This means that she would have this taken off of her record.
Jacoobson is to be on probation until November 28 of 2014. She had to pay 60 dollars, attorney fees, and courrt house. Jacobson was also inclined to pay a 750 dollar civil penalty. They will possibly be putting her into a correctional residential placement.
I decided to take a look at the psychological aspects of violence and aggression. Aggression is built into human beings biologically. This function is used as a survival technique in the species. With this in place it makes sense that some criminals are more aggressive than others. May it be their environment that they grew up in, some people need to take it to the next evel in order to survive. Even if the persons environment is a non threatening one they can still be aggressive. As an infant we learn about our world and how to deal with aggression towards it. Some people don't fully develope into being able to cope with anger well. This leads me to the response that some perpetrators are just people who are underdeveloped and never learned how to cope with aggression.
http://isp.sagepub.com/content/26/3/218.extract

I went to the Blackhawk County Courthouse on November 28, 2011. I arrived to the Courthouse at 1:30 and was there for nearly an hour. While there I attempted to watch to cases. The first case was a criminal hearing where the attorney was attempting to file a motion of some sort. I was unable to discern what the motion was for. The defense attorney, the prosecutor, two police officers, and I patiently waited for the defendant to show up but we waited to no avail. After 15 minutes the defense attorney and the prosecutor agreed to postpone the hearing for a period of two weeks so that the defendant could be reached. While we were waiting for the defendant to show up, and while the defense attorney was outside of the courtroom attempting to call the defendant, the two police officers and the assistant DA were discussing their case against the defendant and how they were hoping to catch him in a lie. It was clear from their comments and the way that they handled themselves that they thought the defendant was undoubtedly guilty. The prosecutor was sharing with the officers some ways in which he would be trying to lure the defendant into lying. This interchange between the officers and the assistant DA really emphasized to me the advocacy nature of our criminal justice system. Even if the defendant is innocent, the prosecution is going to go after him with both guns blazing. Many people think that defense attorneys are people with no moral code who will defend anyone for the right price tag. While there might be some truth to this sentiment, if a defendant is to have any fair shot under our advocacy system he/she needs a defense attorney that will fight back just as hard as the prosecution is. I didn’t really appreciate that fact before taking this class and seeing a live example in action yesterday.
The second hearing I attended was primarily a plea bargain of sorts. The defendant was a habitual offender of rather minor offenses but he had apparently racked up a rather long list of them. The first two people to show up to the courtroom were the defendant and his attorney. They were speaking behind the railing in the courtroom and were discussing the defendant’s wishes and options. The defendant had assumed a rather defeated position during their discussion. He was hunched over and kept his eyes on the floor for the most part. I can’t speak confidently about his psychological state at that time but from his body language and behavior it seemed to me that he was both ashamed and distraught at finding himself in this current situation. A few minutes later a man that I presumed to be his probation officer came in and all three discussed the states’ charges and how they would likely proceed. At this time we were waiting for both the judge and the prosecutor to show up, and from listening to their conversation I assumed that the defendant was probably looking at some fines, maybe a little prison time. When the prosecutor arrived, though, I realized that things were much direr for the defendant. She was a tough woman and was going to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law unless he pled guilty to all charges. I don’t know if it was planned or not, but there was a little bit of the good cop, bad cop routine going on with the prosecutor and the probation officers. The prosecutor would be tough and try to scare him and the probation offer would say something gentle and supportive a few minutes later. It sure seemed like they were attempting to coerce him into a psychological state that would be conducive towards getting him to plead guilty. I should mention that before the prosecutor arrived the defendant told his attorney that he would like to plead guilty if he could have two weeks to get his affairs in order. Before the trial started the prosecutor made it clear that she had some reservations but she never told him no. Once the trial began, she didn’t hesitate to try to keep him in jail before he would be officially sentenced in two weeks. As in the first trial, the behavior of this prosecutor made me realize how important it is that the defendant has an attorney. At least with the two cases I sat in on, the state is willing to do virtually whatever it takes to win. To make a long story short, the defendant told the judge that he would plead guilty on all charges and that he would like two weeks to get his affairs in order. The Judge asked him if he was certain as he was looking at around ten years for all of his accumulated offenses. The defendant accepted that information as if were a trivial matter and said that he was certain. The Judge agreed and sentencing was to begin in two weeks.
This was as a very interesting assignment and I enjoyed studying the players involved. As I mentioned earlier in this blog the main thing that stuck out to me was the aggressive nature of our advocacy system. One would think we might get better results if both sides were a little more moderate instead of shamelessly pursuing only the interests of their respective sides. That is not the way our criminal justice system is set up, though, and I know understand how and why a defense attorney will defend someone who by all appearances is guilty.

I went to black hawl county's courthouse and I visited a couple of court proceedings.I got there a little late so they had already started there jury selection.
The proceeding that I got to observe was about an assault which started out as a fight but ended up tragic. From what i observed is the questions from the defense attorney about their backgrounds and their professional lives.
Some of the main questions were pretty basic but detailed, like about their leisure time and how they take up that time when they have it. Also the type of reading material they read, if they even read any. There was also a question about bumper stickers and if they had any on their car, and out of these four colors which one would they prefer, yellow,blue, red, and green. I think that this process in which the defense took to pick these jurors was pretty instumental in their decisions.
A woman was excused because of failing health, there was also another juror dismissed because his second cousin was the lead investigator on this particular case.

Case #1
Being from Dubuque I went to an OWI case it took about an hour and it was for a man that was caught. I went into the trial and it was odd because as explained to us it wasn’t as strict and stern as I thought it would be. The case was for the men’s license and the penalty he would have to pay. He plead guilty to the charge and he was charged with $1,200 fine and 180 days with no license, that was onto of him serving 48 hours in jail. The cool thing like I said was how relaxed the room was until the defendant came in. After that it become a bit stricter, the defendant looked like he was ashamed of what he had done the judge kind of laid into the defendant and anyone in the room could feel emotion from the man. From a psychological point of view I looked at the shame he must have been feeling and how much worse it must have become when the judge talked to him about his actions. For me I think that would have been punishment enough for me to endure but he was going to have a lot more on top of the shame and guilt.

Case #2
The second case I went to in Moline IL. was a case for selling marijuana. It was a women selling within 500 feet of a school and was caught with 60kg. When I went into this case it was similar to the first. This case however I knew was going to have a more serious punishment due to it being a felony and being so close to a school. Repercussion were much more serious, the lady received 15 years in prison with a $10,000 fine. When I heard this I was shocked but it would appear that the ladies lawyers had informed her of what the charges were going to be. I looked at the aspect of drugs on a person and talked to a friend who had a family member who was did drugs and he told me about how it easily it ruined the family until they worked out the problem and I thought about how serious this case really was due to it being so close to a school and it could separate a family and ruin a kids life all so someone could profit some money for themselves instead of going out and working hard like everyone else has too.

I went to a court proceeding in waterloo on November 16th. I was only there for about an hour so I didn’t get to see the verdict. I realized that for some “actual” cases start early, which is around 9 am but I was late when I went and saw this one. I wish I had gone the day before because it was only the second day. Seeing as I am a prosecutor I would have loved to witness the opening statements of the defense and prosecutors to get a little help for my opening statement.

This case was about domestic violence. A boyfriend and girlfriend had an argument and the boyfriend took it a little too far. He abused his girlfriend and she had also called 911 multiple times during the night and her recordings of the phone calls to 911. It was also interesting to see that the prosecutors used pictures and the audiotapes. I also think that she was going to testify but she had received multiple threats before court so she refused to testify. I am not sure how accurate that is though.

When trying to prove someone is guilty to strangers is very difficult. You have to think of ways to word the questions to make sure the jury sees it your way. I always assumed that with the judge being up so high in the court room meant that he needed to see everything, but after seeing the proceeding it made it feel that the judge was the most authoritative person in the room at the time. Another psychological aspect would be the use of showing pictures to the jurors to show what the man did to his girlfriend. This can help with getting the jury on your side by showing what an animal the defendant is. If a juror can’t look at the defendant you know that you did a good job by showing them that the man is a monster. When showing abuse in any form, it makes sense to go after the women jurors, because they can show emotion and feel more emotion than a guy can.

It was really interesting to see how the court system works through a real life scenario instead of watching it on a show or a movie. I feel more comfortable knowing what can be used in court and what cannot be, but it is still a little nerve wrecking when having to present a case.

Visit #2
I went to the Linn County Courthouse for the second day in a row, on November 22nd. I originally thought after watching video court the day before that I would want to watch it again, but when I got there I thought I may want to watch something else that day. So again I went to the clerk to see what was going on that day. However again there wasnt much going on which I wasnt really happy about, so I had decided that I would watch video court again because the lack of interesting things going on. So I went up to the courtroom again and waited outside like I had the previous day. Again I was the best dressed person that I had saw, which I found weird because you would think people would like to make a good impression on the judge. I didnt have to wait long this time to get in the courtroom. Again the judge came in, but she didnt seem to be in as bad of a mood that day. One thing that I noticed the second day that I hadnt the first time I was there was that the state representative was reading off the case names, I couldnt originally tell if the judge was reading them because her television monitor was in my way. A lot of the charges being brought up were drug charges, which their fate would be determined at a later date. The types of people being charged were of different races and different genders. Some of them were being charged with drug paraphernalia, others being charged with having more than a personal amount of drugs. There was a defense attorney present that was recommending bail be set for most of the people being charged, there was also an attorney from the state also present, who didn’t look like she was taking it too seriously. Every time the defense would recommend the defendant be let out on bail, she never objected. I thought she may recommend that they be sent to a half-way house or remain under surveillance until their next hearing. Most of the bail was set a relatively low amount, but one person that had drug charges bail was set at $10,000! About halfway through the hearings a man came in to the room to sit down and watch or at least I thought, however he leaned over to me and gave me a business card. On his card was a name, phone number and location of a business for a bail bondsman. He handed them out to everyone in the courtroom watching. I thought it was weird that he came in during the middle of the proceedings was playing on his phone in plain view of the judge and then left after sitting there for a while; I thought the judge would be angry but she never said anything about it. I could tell all of the people in the courtroom besides me were there watching people on trial. They were all sitting their very quietly and watching the television screen very intently, I had the luxury of watching them along with watching the television screen. You could tell that if the judge imposed a low amount of bail they would breathe a sigh of relief, but there was one couple that looked distraught about the $7,500 bail that was set. The elements of psychology that were present, not only by the defendants but by the people in the courtroom but by the courtroom actors and people watching as well. I think the defense attorney was playing a bit of a psychological game because she knew whatever bail she recommended the state attorney would agree with it, so she could set bail low and the state attorney would agree, then the judge would have to accept it. The defendants the second time around looked more distraught that they were on trial and looked embarrassed. One defendant even was apologetic with the judge, probably trying to get her bail reduced, it didn’t work. Many of the defendants also had the sad and apologetic looks on their faces, but at this stage of the trial process there was nothing that the judge could do to feel sorry for them. I was there for close to 2 hours for this visit, luckily some family members got up and left during the end of the proceedings and I snuck out behind them from the back of the court room because my parking meter was about to run out!!

I am a juror in our class mock trial, so I went to two trials.

The first time I visited the Black Hawk County Courthouse was on Wednesday, November 23. There was a young man who was charged with stopping in the middle of a road. Apparently it was around 6 am when this man and his friend were driving home from Theisen’s. They noticed that a car was tailgating them, so they slowed down in order to have the other car pass them or give them space. The other car persisted.

According to the prosecutor, the driver then stopped the car completely in order to teach the tailgater a lesson. The police officer who arrived at the scene of the accident had the same testimony.
The defendant represented himself, and claimed that his passenger told him there was a deer in the road, which led the driver to slam on his breaks. The defendant called his passenger as a witness. The passenger said that he was not wearing his glasses at the time of the accident, and was legally blind without them. He said that he thought he saw something in the road, and told the driver to stop. The prosecutor then brought up that this witness had been charged with lying to the police before, and the witness agreed that he had, but that he was telling the truth this time.

This time the judge reached her verdict right after both sides had presented their case. She found that the defendant was guilty of stopping his vehicle in the middle of a roadway, and he was fined $100. This case only lasted about a half an hour.
The whole mood of the courtroom seemed very strict and tense during this trial.
It was very official and formal in the actual court room. However, outside the courtroom, it was much more relaxed. The clerks were friendly and chatty and would strike up conversations of interest with passersby’s.

The second time I visited the Black Hawk County Courthouse was around 3pm today, November 29. I snuck into a pretty interesting lawsuit between Donna Firgard and the propane company, New Century. Donna Firgard was caught in an explosion caused by trying to light her hot water heater, unknowing that there was propane pooling in her basement.

The prosecution‘s main goal was to strike a sympathetic nerve with the jury. It wasn't hard as Firgard was an older lady, so she makes a very sympathetic plaintiff for a case involving major injury. However, the prosecution seemed rather nervous and disorganized, and it showed quite clearly in his speech.
Although he had a lot of good material, his opening speech took over an hour discussing Firgard’s recovery and the pain she went through. This seemed to be a downer even though it was sad, it took too long and the jury seemed to tune him out towards the end.

On the other hand, the New Century defense attorney seemed very organized and professional. His opening statement was much more clear and hit all of his main points. He also knew how to intrigue the jury through his statements.
The defense attorney was also smart enough to humanize the corporation he was representing. Had he gone any other route it easily could have become the idea of the evil corporation versus the weak old lady. It freed him up to still deny liability in several ways that were rather convincing.
It turns out that the lead in pipe for the propane had been tampered with several times. A plumber knocked it and shut it himself and rough fill gravel was laid and a backhoe was brought in and the piping for the propane ended up wrapped in a layer of four inch plastic drain tile to support the gravel over that section.

The defense also brought up the idea of possible memory issues caused by the trauma and opted that Firgard's memory of that day was different than that of the neighbor who found her in the yard. The fire happened May 30th, 2008 so there is a good chance that there is some memory errors all around.

This is not just dealing with facts, but also dealing with emotions. The decision that the jury makes will affect Donna for the rest of her life. It is unfortunate; however, that no matter how much or little money Donna receives, it still won’t come close to helping her forget what happened to her. Everyone else that was involved in this trial will go home and go on with their lives, and although Donna will continue to live hers, she will constantly be reminded of the horrors she lived through due to the physical scars she endured. It was very saddening to see her be so emotional in the courtroom, which makes me wonder if the jurors could be swayed by her apparent pain.

Lindsey Fails

(This is my second post)

I made more than two court visits throughout the semester but found that the morning court arraignments were my favorite. I was able to get to see a lot of different people and how they interacted with the judge. Psychology was definitely at work during these arraignments.

On October, 19 2011 I visited the Blackhawk county courthouse. I sat in the small room with 16 other people. Some of them were dressed nicely, others looked as though they had just woken up. Some people seem to take the trial process very seriously while others view it as a casual event, an experience that they are more than likely use too. At about 9:30am the judge walked in wearing her robe. She immediately called up the first person on her list and began hearing there pleas of guilt or innocence.

The judge seemed very professional and strict. The rest of the individuals in the room were talking amongst themselves. Some had support with them, others were by themselves waiting to hear their fate. The room consisted of all different types of people; Black, white, hispanic, young, old, males, and females.

One of the defendants was a 84 year old woman who ran a stop sign and was given a ticket by an officer. She was unemployed and living on social security checks that only amounted to barely a livable amount. Not enough for any other expenses. She went in front of the judge to explain that she would be unable to pay the minimum fine of 50 dollars per month until the total fine was paid. The judge seemed to feel sorry for the lady but was unable to change the laws considering the minimum payment of citations. She told her to report to the clerk of courts and discuss the issue with her. The old lady was clearly upset and kept exclaiming she was too old to be in this situation.

Another case was of a young man in his mid twentys who was facing the judge on a misdemenor disorderly conduct charge. He was involved in a fight a few months earlier and was seeking a deferred judgement. He had no previous record and seemed to be a pretty good guy on the surface. Since he decided to plea guilty to the charges but asked for a deferred judgement, meaning the charge would be on his record for one year and then after a year of good behavior and payment of the fine in total the charge would be cleared from his record. He had apparently never been in trouble before and planned on staying out of trouble in the future. The prosecutor stepped in for this hearing because the defendant was seeking a deferred judgement on a violent crime that the prosecutor believed he should not recieve. After the Prosecutor told the judge he fought the victim and then ran from the police. He was then able to explain his side of the story and told the judge he was told to leave the scene of the fight by the bartender. Given the facts presented the judge decided to give him the deferred judgement ordered him to pay a fine and placed the gentleman on self probation for one year.

After the arraignments were over it took a total of about an hour to get through the list. After each case the defendant would leave and go about their business. As the last person approached the bench I swept out the door as to not be the last person in the courtroom. It was a very good expereince and interesting to see how people react in such stressful situtaions like court procedings.

Well this is sort of humorous, but I attended a trial hearing while on my honeymoon in Jacksonville, FL. I went to a place a few miles from the Atlantic Ocean named the Duval County Courthouse. It was very awkward when I approached the desk to ask I would be able to sit in on a trial. The first younger lady thought I was joking and said that she didn’t think I was able to, but I asked her to check with her superior and I was let right in.

My wife and I sat in for close to an hour and watched two different trials. The first trial involved an offender accused of supplying alcohol to a minor that was trying to prove his innocence by saying the minor stole the alcohol from his home. He felt that he had nothing to do with the incident and the minor should be here at and not him. He ended up being sentenced with supplying alcohol to a minor and receiving a sentence of a twenty-five hundred dollar find and narrowly escaped thirty days in prison. The judge explained his leniency since it was this man’s first offense and he had a clean record up to this point. The defendant still seemed extremely pissed off and stormed out of the courtroom. I laughed quietly in the back.

The second trial was for a man facing charges for disorderly conduct and public intoxication. He was out all night drinking at a bar called the bucket right on Jacksonville Beach. He left the bar and wanted to walk by the ocean. The man stumbled upon a young couple that was fooling around in the sand and started bad mouthing them. The couple got angry and called the cop saying the man was using profanity and threatening them. As he walked off the police arrived and attempted to apprehend him. The man began to talk belligerently with them and was hauled off. By this time my wife said I think we can go now, so we proceeded with our honeymoon. I was bummed because I wanted to know what his sentence would be, but I wasn’t going to say that!

Aspects of psychology that I saw were many cognitive and social psychology aspects. Cognitively the defendants were brainstorming ways to make their story seem true to the judge and make themselves look like the good guy. Each defendant played the part of the innocent person and tried to say all the right things. Socially these people were trying to also make themselves look like harmless everyday people that had been 'framed.' It really was funny to watch these two trials and the way the people acted inside the courtroom as opposed the the ways in which they acted outside the courtroom.

Elsie Luna
Courthouse Visit Reflection
December, 2011

I visited the Black Hawk County courthouse on November 8th, 2011. I got there around 1:00pm and stayed for the opening statements and prosecutor’s first witness. I was glad to go on the day I did because there was actually an interesting case being presented. I walked into the court room and was asked to stand as the judge entered the room. He entered and we all sat down. The trial began with the opening statements from the prosecuting and defense attorneys. There were very few people in the room, a couple older adults and one other college student.
The trial was about an event that happened on March 10th, 2011. The defendant resided in a house on Merner Avenue in Cedar Falls. She has often been in conflict with one of her neighbors, a male who also lives in Merner Avenue. On March 10th, the defendant, a female, drove up to her house and into her driveway to find her pest neighbor praying her plants outside with some type of pesticide or poison. She yelled at him immediately to stop and he did. He then ran into his car and attempted to leave the scene, as the woman had threatened she was going to call the cops. He got into his car, and started driving out the of the driveway, meanwhile yelling obscene things at the lady. They had been in conflict several times before and that is why the defendant took immediate action by calling the police when she found him in her yard. In the time he was driving out of her driveway, he ran over her foot. Because of this action, this is considered a personal injury case.
Even though he ran over her foot, he continued to leave the driveway and drive away. The defendant struggled to walk to the front of the house while she waited for the police. When the police arrived they told her she should go to the hospital, so she did. The police could not find the perpetrator until 3 days after this even happened. It is unclear as to why it took so long, but clearly he was hiding from them because he did run over someone’s foot and drove away! While at the hospital, it was concluded that her ankle and foot were “severely” injured, causing her to have physical therapy every day since the incident.
This whole story was told by the prosecutor’s first witness, the victim herself. The typical proceedings took place as she approached the stand. She swore to tell the truth, etc. She looked fairly calm about the situation but one could tell she was clearly upset about what happened. After the prosecuting attorney was done questioning the victim, the defense attorney started questioning her. The defense attorney seemed to be very focus on the layout of the parking lot that all of this happened in. Unfortunately, I had to leave the trial around 3:30 because I had a few other things to attend to. This was also the point when the judge called for the first recess. Because I did not return, I am unsure as to the outcome of the case. If I had to guess, I would assume the defendant was found guilty. There was a lot of picture evidence that I think would be hard to dispute.
The proceedings of this trial were as I expected them to be. It was very systematic and unfortunately, for my entertainment, there were hardly any interesting and serious emotions to observe. From a psychological standpoint, it was clear the defense attorney was trying to manipulate the victim into taking some responsibility for her foot being run over. But, in my opinion, I do not see at all why someone would want their foot to be run over. That seems very stupid to me. Overall, this was a very interesting two hours of my life and I would not be opposed to visiting the courthouse again.

I visited the Black Hawk County district court on November 7th. This case was a civil lawsuit that was about a vehicle that was sold to Brite Woodruff (plaintiff) by Community Motors (defendant). I had a unique viewpoint in this case due to the fact that Brite is my stepbrother. I arrived at the courthouse at 10:45 a.m. The proceedings started around 11:00 a.m. Due to this being a civil matter, it had no jury, or lawyers present. Since the mediation session had happened, this court date was to plead their cases in front of Honorable Patricia Meany. The trial lasted about 2 hours. There wasn't a lot that happened during the trial. The case was about a vehicle that was sold by Community Motors to Mr. Woodruff, the vehicle was assured by Community Motors that it was checked out for major problems and came back fine. However, the vehicle only lasted 3 weeks before the engine needed to be replaced. Mr. Woodruff went back to the dealership to get his money back. They would not work with him. During the trial Todd Alldredge (Community Motors) said that in the mediation session that he offered Mr. Woodruff a settlement of “whatever cash is in my pocket” and that should have been enough of a settlement for the car. I found out through Brite that the judgement was in his favor for the cost of replacing the engine. From the psychological aspect this case was about deception and how to deceive another. By lying to Brite that the car was in working shape deceived him into buying a vehicle they knew was not in good shape. Overall, I was very amused by how Mr. Alldredge became angry and tried to defend his position of just a straightforward salesman. There's a reason why people perceive used car salesman as sneaky people and this is a perfect example of just trying to get the sale.

Courthouse visit #2
I went back to the Polk County courthouse on Nov .22 (last day of court until after Thanksgiving). I got to the courtroom at 10am and left around 11:15. The case I sat in on was a land dispute between 2 property developers. This was a trial presided over by t jury (which I was surprised to see). The dispute has been going on since 2006, where one developer bought 20 acres from the other developer. Supposedly there was a stipulation in the sales agreement that said that Kress (the original owner of the land) could not build any apartments on the adjacent property for 10 years. Although this was never put into the land purchase contract, it was a handshake deal. Wolf construction who purchased the land had not developed the land when Kress started construction on an apartment complex.
I was pretty confused at this point. And the jury seemed pretty confused to. But because it was a “handshake” deal (which in a lot of courts is as good as a paper contract) it was more of a case of “he said-he said”. This case had gone to mediation several times over the past few years to no avail. So now it was time for a jury to decide if the handshake was true or not. Kress said there had been no deal, and Wolf said there had. Furthermore Wolf construction wanted to sell the land back to Kress but for more than what they purchased it for because the area had been developed and the fair market value on the land is more now than what it was previously. Kress disagreed with this and only wanted to pay the original selling price.
I knew a little about this trial before hand (my brother works for Wolf Construction) and Kress has had some legal problems over the past twenty years. So my opinion going in was a little tainted. And while watching the jury listen to testimony from both of the owners, they seemed to watch Mr. Kress closely. Was this because they knew about the legal problems in the past and had a biased attitude towards him already? Did they want to see if he was lying about what had transpired?
I wish I had more time to see the whole trial as well as the verdict (I know from my brother that Wolf Construction won the case on all accounts) but the verdict was not going to be until after Thanksgiving.
Psychologically speaking I thought it was interesting watching the jury listen to the testimony given. You could see how some of them didn’t care one way or the other, but there was 2 members that looked as if they had their mind made up who was going to win the case (there is no way of telling whose case they supported but you could see that they didn’t have a questioning look to them). And this was first day of the trial. I think it is interesting that people can make a quick decision based on very little, or more so from preconceived notions. If I were on the jury, I would want to know everything there was to know about the case, and then come to a cohesive decision based on all of the facts presented. I think that there are too many people that don’t want to be involved with the courts (or jury duty for that matter) and will just go along with whoever makes a decision first.
Again there were very few people in the gallery (4 total people including myself). I was the only one with a note pad---a woman sitting behind me asked if I was with the press, to her disappointment though I told her I wasn’t and was working on a school assignment, then she wanted to know everything about me and what I was doing. I apologized to her and said I had to pay attention to what was going on. (I don’t think she liked my excuse.)