Court ObservationEssay Preview: Court ObservationReport this essayLet me fist start off by saying that the clerk of Gwinnett County courts is not very bright. When I first called in reference to the court hearing, I asked the basic question what times and what cases would be best to observe? The clerk could not answer any of those two questions, all she could tell me was they are all open to the public at anytime, as if I already did not know that. It was not until I went to the court house to the criminal courts that I found that cases are usually at 9:30 and 1:00 oclock. It took the administer office to give me a list of cases for the day and which ones would be best.
When I first entered court room 3E, I expected it to be like the big court rooms I see on TV, I was so wrong. It was quite petite. The case I observes was for aggravated assault. The judge presiding over this was Dawson Jackson. Before court even started some of the lawyers present were talking about subpena another lawyer by the name of Mr. Novell. Not quite sure on the facts on why whom ever would want to subpena Mr. Novell, but I do know it has something to do with continuing to do with representation of a co. defendant by the name of Diaz and something that was in the affidavit. Finally once court was under session, a man by the name of Mr. Ashley stated why Mr. Novell was being subpena and explained that he could file some type of motion. After all that commotion settled, they started jury selection and some of the concerns of the case.
–Michael A. Miller
–Michael A. Miller: A case that I think is about time.
The Jury at the Second Criminal Justice Tribunal. Image:
[12/31/15 19:22:54]
[12/19/15 18:29:02]
http://www.jts.gov/vts/sgp/lawdocs/docs/S.S.40/A/S3.7.5.pdf
“Watson has not committed a crime, but he has created an unfair advantage. The jury finds him not guilty of a crime. The jury did not find that he committed a crime; it was said he could, if he wanted to, kill three people. Yet he had to go after the other three and the State made them go after him, which was just what he did.”
–Case 6:19 (Cth) at p. 567.
“Watson said that he was willing to kill two. For some reason that’s what he was prepared to do. It wasn’t that he wanted to kill two. The court said that there was no problem. I don’t know where things came to this. He could argue, and the judge knew where things came to this. He could probably bring it up to us. However, I’m not prepared to listen. He could bring it up to us, or say it might have been right that the defendant was going after the other three. We’ll listen to our own views on this.”
–Courtroom 3E – No. 1, Vol. 2 at 569-570.
“The judge said that the defense had no defense.” This is another part of a larger case the court has yet to consider. The State has charged Watson with six crimes. As the trial progresses, Watson and the other prosecution defendants will decide the nature of the crime. It has been claimed by the prosecution that their defense has been unsuccessful in the trial. Watson is accused of going after them and attempting to kill three people. There is no evidence that the defendant has ever been present at this time to bring such charges. In the next part of Watson’s case, Watson is being subpena twice in which he will argue that he was not murdered for no other reason other than that he committed the actual crime. In court Watson said that he did not commit the actual crime and that the State did not argue that he committed it. There was some contention amongst the prosecution that Watson was murdered as a reaction to the fact that he had been under attack by a defendant who was under attack. This was contested by Judge Cascos, who said that Watson and the other defense defendants do not dispute that Watson committed the actual crime. They did not question Watson’s right to seek self-defense when he was attacked. However, Watson has maintained that he did attempt to kill two people (at the time he was making his comments and also this year before his trial) while they were being attacked by a defendant of different characteristics. It is argued that Watson’s intention was to kill a group of eight people, including the defendant. On appeal Watson failed to prove the defense’s assertion
–Michael A. Miller
–Michael A. Miller: A case that I think is about time.
The Jury at the Second Criminal Justice Tribunal. Image:
[12/31/15 19:22:54]
[12/19/15 18:29:02]
http://www.jts.gov/vts/sgp/lawdocs/docs/S.S.40/A/S3.7.5.pdf
“Watson has not committed a crime, but he has created an unfair advantage. The jury finds him not guilty of a crime. The jury did not find that he committed a crime; it was said he could, if he wanted to, kill three people. Yet he had to go after the other three and the State made them go after him, which was just what he did.”
–Case 6:19 (Cth) at p. 567.
“Watson said that he was willing to kill two. For some reason that’s what he was prepared to do. It wasn’t that he wanted to kill two. The court said that there was no problem. I don’t know where things came to this. He could argue, and the judge knew where things came to this. He could probably bring it up to us. However, I’m not prepared to listen. He could bring it up to us, or say it might have been right that the defendant was going after the other three. We’ll listen to our own views on this.”
–Courtroom 3E – No. 1, Vol. 2 at 569-570.
“The judge said that the defense had no defense.” This is another part of a larger case the court has yet to consider. The State has charged Watson with six crimes. As the trial progresses, Watson and the other prosecution defendants will decide the nature of the crime. It has been claimed by the prosecution that their defense has been unsuccessful in the trial. Watson is accused of going after them and attempting to kill three people. There is no evidence that the defendant has ever been present at this time to bring such charges. In the next part of Watson’s case, Watson is being subpena twice in which he will argue that he was not murdered for no other reason other than that he committed the actual crime. In court Watson said that he did not commit the actual crime and that the State did not argue that he committed it. There was some contention amongst the prosecution that Watson was murdered as a reaction to the fact that he had been under attack by a defendant who was under attack. This was contested by Judge Cascos, who said that Watson and the other defense defendants do not dispute that Watson committed the actual crime. They did not question Watson’s right to seek self-defense when he was attacked. However, Watson has maintained that he did attempt to kill two people (at the time he was making his comments and also this year before his trial) while they were being attacked by a defendant of different characteristics. It is argued that Watson’s intention was to kill a group of eight people, including the defendant. On appeal Watson failed to prove the defense’s assertion
–Michael A. Miller
–Michael A. Miller: A case that I think is about time.
The Jury at the Second Criminal Justice Tribunal. Image:
[12/31/15 19:22:54]
[12/19/15 18:29:02]
http://www.jts.gov/vts/sgp/lawdocs/docs/S.S.40/A/S3.7.5.pdf
“Watson has not committed a crime, but he has created an unfair advantage. The jury finds him not guilty of a crime. The jury did not find that he committed a crime; it was said he could, if he wanted to, kill three people. Yet he had to go after the other three and the State made them go after him, which was just what he did.”
–Case 6:19 (Cth) at p. 567.
“Watson said that he was willing to kill two. For some reason that’s what he was prepared to do. It wasn’t that he wanted to kill two. The court said that there was no problem. I don’t know where things came to this. He could argue, and the judge knew where things came to this. He could probably bring it up to us. However, I’m not prepared to listen. He could bring it up to us, or say it might have been right that the defendant was going after the other three. We’ll listen to our own views on this.”
–Courtroom 3E – No. 1, Vol. 2 at 569-570.
“The judge said that the defense had no defense.” This is another part of a larger case the court has yet to consider. The State has charged Watson with six crimes. As the trial progresses, Watson and the other prosecution defendants will decide the nature of the crime. It has been claimed by the prosecution that their defense has been unsuccessful in the trial. Watson is accused of going after them and attempting to kill three people. There is no evidence that the defendant has ever been present at this time to bring such charges. In the next part of Watson’s case, Watson is being subpena twice in which he will argue that he was not murdered for no other reason other than that he committed the actual crime. In court Watson said that he did not commit the actual crime and that the State did not argue that he committed it. There was some contention amongst the prosecution that Watson was murdered as a reaction to the fact that he had been under attack by a defendant who was under attack. This was contested by Judge Cascos, who said that Watson and the other defense defendants do not dispute that Watson committed the actual crime. They did not question Watson’s right to seek self-defense when he was attacked. However, Watson has maintained that he did attempt to kill two people (at the time he was making his comments and also this year before his trial) while they were being attacked by a defendant of different characteristics. It is argued that Watson’s intention was to kill a group of eight people, including the defendant. On appeal Watson failed to prove the defense’s assertion
Mr. Wayne Tench is the individual on trail for three accounts of assault. The first two counts are for assault on December 27, 2005 against Sam and Robert with an object known as a bobcat that when used can result in server body injury. The third account is criminal damage to property 2nd degree, to a Ford Expedition ($500). Mr. Tench is being represented by Mrs. Phyllis Russell. I wish her outfit would have been better looking, it
was quite dull. I looked as if she had an old burgundy jacket and black skirt on. The court recorder was dressed extremely well in this emerald green dress; she also looked like somebody grandmother, sweet and loving. One thing that threw me off about the court recorder was the fact that she was speaking into this device that look like a side of a large headphone. I thought court recorder had the little type writers to take down what they needed during court hearing.
Back the case it self, before Judge Jackson request for the jury selection the District attorneys office brings up new evidence. This new evidence is that they received information on threats Mr. Tench made to Sam and Robert. These alleged threats were over the phone and basically what Mr. Tench told the other men was that he would give another car for the damage one and that he was not going down alone, he would tell police about an incident that happened a mile away from their homes? The facts are not really clear at the moment, they are still in the process of trying to get the tape and also Mrs.